Proof Doesn't Matter

[darkrobe]

okay. i make a 200 pound frame. i attempt to lift it by method A. (aka pulling on it with my arms.). I fail to lift it. A World champion weight lifter comes by and attempts to lift it by method a (aka pulling on it with his arms). he succeds in lifting it. Where in that situation did I fail to create something I could not lift?

[OldTrees]

okay. i make a 200 pound frame. i attempt to lift it by method A. (aka pulling on it with my arms.). I fail to lift it. A World champion weight lifter comes by and attempts to lift it by method a (aka pulling on it with his arms). he succeds in lifting it. Where in that situation did I fail to create something I could not lift?

Method would include the amount of force used. You created something that weighed more than the force you could exert and less than the force the weight lifter could exert. Anyone (including you) that used the same vector of force as the weight lifter would be able to lift the object. Therefore your inability to lift it is not a characteristic of the object or of the act of creating the object but rather a consequence of what methods you are limited to. An Omnipotent being is not limited in what possible method they can use.

[darkrobe]

I think Im going to end my arguments. We are too far apart in terms of basic understanding of what the terms we are using mean. We cant even agree on what omnipotence means. (ps. my version is the first listed definition on any site i looked up. it is not an extreme definition.) Your narrow version fits your arguments fine, but it has very little relation to any god figure I can currently imagine or have seen described, so i find it of limited use or validity.

[OldTrees]

Reminder of my other quesiton
Can it ever be rational to permanently exclude a possible option by requiring impossible evidence?" (and if so the how/why)

Non God or Omnipotent related example:
Dave is blind. Dave has no evidence that color exists. When his peers try to show him color exists he argues that color could be a delusion they suffer from. They show him experiments with different objects absorbing different wavelengths of light. Dave agrees that this shows a relation between the difference in the material and the difference in the absorption but remains unconvinced that the difference was color rather than a currently unknown factor like the chemical bond energies in the materials. What results is Dave requires evidence that does not necessarily exist prior to entertaining the possibility that color exists. If color exists and evidence Dave would accept does not, then Dave has excluded a possible option by requiring impossible evidence.

Is this exclusion rational?

[Neopergoss]

So you do believe that if a being with unlimited power existed then there would necessarily exist* evidence that you would find sufficient.
*Though you might not be aware of the evidence.

No, there could certainly be a being with unlimited power that exists but chose not to leave evidence of its own existence. There could also be an alien hiding in my closet right now. Until I'm presented with evidence of either one, however, I won't believe in them.

So if there was a being with unlimited power that did not wish to reveal itself, then you might be requiring impossible evidence to be convinced of its existence?

If so, what is your reasoning for requiring impossible evidence to be convinced?

No, I wouldn't be requiring impossible evidence. I would be requiring evidence. If it does not wish to present evidence, that doesn't make it "impossible," unless you want to argue against free will. As stated earlier, anything is possible for a being of unlimited power.

Without evidence, how can you possibly support any proposition without lending support to any and all possible propositions?

What I feel should be discussed is "Whether it can ever be rational to permanently exclude a possible option by requiring impossible evidence?" (and if so the how/why)

I'm not permanently excluding any options. If and when I see evidence, I'll change my position. There's certainly the possibility that a deity will suddenly choose to reveal itself one day. What can never be rational is to take a position without any supporting evidence.

[OldTrees]

So you do believe that if a being with unlimited power existed then there would necessarily exist* evidence that you would find sufficient.
*Though you might not be aware of the evidence.

No, there could certainly be a being with unlimited power that exists but chose not to leave evidence of its own existence. There could also be an alien hiding in my closet right now. Until I'm presented with evidence of either one, however, I won't believe in them.

So if there was a being with unlimited power that did not wish to reveal itself, then you might be requiring impossible evidence to be convinced of its existence?

If so, what is your reasoning for requiring impossible evidence to be convinced?

No, I wouldn't be requiring impossible evidence. I would be requiring evidence. If it does not wish to present evidence, that doesn't make it "impossible," unless you want to argue against free will. As stated earlier, anything is possible for a being of unlimited power.

Without evidence, how can you possibly support any proposition without lending support to any and all possible propositions?

What I feel should be discussed is "Whether it can ever be rational to permanently exclude a possible option by requiring impossible evidence?" (and if so the how/why)

I'm not permanently excluding any options. If and when I see evidence, I'll change my position. There's certainly the possibility that a deity will suddenly choose to reveal itself one day. What can never be rational is to take a position without any supporting evidence.

If "a being with unlimited power that does not wish to reveal itself existed" could there exist any evidence to convince you that a  being with unlimited power that does not wish to reveal itself existed? You implied that evidence of such a being was impossible unless the being changed its mind. So you cannot believe "a being with unlimited power that does not wish to reveal itself existed" but could possibly see evidence for "a being with unlimited power that does wish to reveal itself existed". You have permanently excluded the possibility of "a being with unlimited power that does not wish to reveal itself" from the beliefs you could possibly hold.
My question is: Whether this is reasonable, if so why is it reasonable and what are the limitations on those reasons? Is it reasonable for Dave (see my most recent post) to exclude the possibility of color existing?

You assert that it "can never be rational is to take a position without any supporting evidence". I agree when evidence necessarily exists. However I would be hard pressed to agree in cases where evidence necessarily does not exist. In cases where no evidence can exist for any position including the null position, I see no reason to take any position over another nor to avoid any position in favor of another.

[Neopergoss]

If "a being with unlimited power that does not wish to reveal itself existed" could there exist any evidence to convince you that a  being with unlimited power that does not wish to reveal itself existed?

No. Likewise, if that green alien hiding in my closet chooses to remain hiding there, I'm not going to have any way of knowing if it's there or not. I'm not going to start believing in a god or in a green alien "just in case." That's madness. In that case I wouldn't be able to open the door because there "might" be a thermonuclear device triggered by my action. Nothing would make sense anymore if I discarded the need for evidence-based beliefs -- it would be the same as discarding rationality and logic itself.

You assert that it "can never be rational is to take a position without any supporting evidence". I agree when evidence necessarily exists. However I would be hard pressed to agree in cases where evidence necessarily does not exist. In cases where no evidence can exist for any position including the null position, I see no reason to take any position over another nor to avoid any position in favor of another.

No, no, no. The null position, by definition, is what it is most rational to assume without any evidence.

If someone gives you a pill and says "This pill cures cancer." You might be excited. But suppose you were to ask about how he knew this, about what kind of testing he'd done, and he told you that tests don't work on this medicine. He claims that the medicine only works when it is not being tested. If you take the pill, you must not inform others that you took it, and you must never let him find out whether your cancer was cured. If either of these conditions are violated, the pill won't work. No evidence can exist proving him wrong. Would you hold out much hope that this unusual pill would work?

Probably not. More likely, you'd accuse him of making something up so that he could sell pills without ever having to worry about being exposed as a fraud...sound familiar? Anyone can make something up that's immune to testability, but that doesn't make it rational to believe in it. I sure wouldn't buy that pill, and I have at least as much reason to believe that belief in gods is something that people made up.

[OldTrees]

If "a being with unlimited power that does not wish to reveal itself existed" could there exist any evidence to convince you that a  being with unlimited power that does not wish to reveal itself existed?

No. Likewise, if that green alien hiding in my closet chooses to remain hiding there, I'm not going to have any way of knowing if it's there or not. I'm not going to start believing in a god or in a green alien "just in case." That's madness. In that case I wouldn't be able to open the door because there "might" be a thermonuclear device triggered by my action. Nothing would make sense anymore if I discarded the need for evidence-based beliefs -- it would be the same as discarding rationality and logic itself.

You assert that it "can never be rational is to take a position without any supporting evidence". I agree when evidence necessarily exists. However I would be hard pressed to agree in cases where evidence necessarily does not exist. In cases where no evidence can exist for any position including the null position, I see no reason to take any position over another nor to avoid any position in favor of another.

No, no, no. The null position, by definition, is what it is most rational to assume without any evidence.

If someone gives you a pill and says "This pill cures cancer." You might be excited. But suppose you were to ask about how he knew this, about what kind of testing he'd done, and he told you that tests don't work on this medicine. He claims that the medicine only works when it is not being tested. If you take the pill, you must not inform others that you took it, and you must never let him find out whether your cancer was cured. If either of these conditions are violated, the pill won't work. No evidence can exist proving him wrong. Would you hold out much hope that this unusual pill would work?

Probably not. More likely, you'd accuse him of making something up so that he could sell pills without ever having to worry about being exposed as a fraud...sound familiar? Anyone can make something up that's immune to testability, but that doesn't make it rational to believe in it. I sure wouldn't buy that pill, and I have at least as much reason to believe that belief in gods is something that people made up.

Nothing would make sense if you discarded your evidence based beliefs in cases where evidence cannot exist either way? I do not see why evidence based beliefs are applicable where evidence cannot exist either way.

The null position, as far as I understand, gains its credibility from the positive having possible evidence that is not present. If no evidence can exist either way, why would one assume the null?

Unable to be tested is an interesting claim that I am probably misunderstanding. If someone ran a personal 1 person case study that would be testing. In order for them not to be testing the pill they would have to act the same with or without taking the pill and not encounter any unexpected results like what the pill is intended to do. So being unable to be tested results in the thing being useless if I understood correctly. This means that the pill will not work regardless of whether the person was honest or not.

Rather than try to appeal to our intuitions can you give reasons that don't rely on the possibility of evidence that would still support your claim that the null should be assumed?
Meanwhile there is still the Blind Dave and Moral Truth examples for you to give us your opinion on.

PS: The green alien and thermonuclear devices would have sufficient evidence if they existed. All you need to do would be to open the door. Thus they are not on topic.

[darkrobe]

Im curious as to why dave would in any way care about the existence of something he could never experience?

[Naesala]

Im curious as to why dave would in any way care about the existence of something he could never experience?

Well a few reasons. To better understand symbolism in novels, to know that one day if he can experience colors, (parallel being if god is real we can one day experience god in heaven) , to make his appearance and home more appealing to others, other reasons along those lines(and other parallels to god, so that you can have eternal happiness rather than eternal punishment, so your life can be possibly better, to give a person hope)

[OldTrees]

Im curious as to why dave would in any way care about the existence of something he could never experience?

Not caring about a question would be a reason to not change ones mind on the topic. This reason is probably limited by the magnitude of the apathy involved.

[darkrobe]

Im curious as to why dave would in any way care about the existence of something he could never experience?

Well a few reasons. To better understand symbolism in novels, to know that one day if he can experience colors, (parallel being if god is real we can one day experience god in heaven) , to make his appearance and home more appealing to others, other reasons along those lines(and other parallels to god, so that you can have eternal happiness rather than eternal punishment, so your life can be possibly better, to give a person hope)

But the equivalent to this discussion would be a blind man (lets call him dave), being told by other blind men, (lets call them the pro-color group) that colors exist. Neither Dave nor the pro-color group have any evidence that colors exist. The reasons you give are based on either 1. the assumption that other people can judge him based on colors, which... when everyone is blind, any judgements made on color would be completely arbitrary. or 2. So that he can adjust his life to live as if colors exist, which... because he is blind, will result in completely arbitrary adjustments in lifestyle that arent based on anything.


To expand, If I came to you and told you that there was a supreme ultimate being in control of the universe. And that such a being has the ability to send your soul to a place of eternal hapiness or pain when you die. His only requirement to send you to a place of eternal happiness, is that you commit aviolent murder in the next five minutes. Would you leave my supreme being as a possibilty? and if so how would you act on this possibility?

Assume, I have provided no evidence of this beings exstence, in fact, I say that it is impossible to know whether the being exists until these five minutes are over.