I apologize, but I want to respond to a post on another thread, even though that thread is not closed. I do this because the issue is important, and I believe, involves a common fundamental error. The post was by "ificouldhietokolob" in the tread "A sincere question to atheists here." Essentially, the OP was seeking an explanation for a phenomena that appeared, at least to OP, to involve a miracle, ergo, God. I am not responding to that thread; in fact, I did not even follow the substantive phenomenon in question in that thread. So, my comments are general.

Here was Kolob's response, with my commentary:

KOLOB: "I can't explain this, so it's a miracle/god."

COMMENT: I agree that such an inference is fallacious, but that is not the inference that is usually made, if ever. It is not the lack of explanation that supports the inference, but the nature of the proposed phenomenon. No theist would say that for any phenomenon that can't be explained, a miracle is implied. The lack of alternative explanation is merely cited, if at all, as an invitation to provide an alternative explanation.

KOLOB: "That's an argument from personal ignorance and incredulity. Both are fallacious -- meaning worthless for reaching a valid conclusion. For very good reasons."

COMMENT: NO! When the context is not a dogmatic religious pronouncement, a suggested inference from some mysterious occurrence to God is usually a sincere attempt to understand the phenomenon in the face of limited knowledge—even if such a person favors a religious explanation. There is nothing wrong with that—even if it involves "supernatural" agency. If one takes the position that only materialist explanations count, then one begs the question. But, in any event, it is not fallacious to consider supernatural agency as an explanation for "mysterious" coincidences, although it might be problematic on other grounds; particularly in the face of a clear natural explanation.

KOLOB: "So there's no need for me (or anyone else) to "explain" something, or else it's "god." Unexplained doesn't mean "god did it," unexplained means unexplained. Some people can't live with unexplained, so they say "god did it" just so they have an explanation. I'm ok with "unexplained." Even though most of the time, there are explanations that don't involve all-powerful supernatural beings. Or anything of the sort.

COMMENT: Again, this is a mistake. Although unexplained does not mean God did it, when any "mysterious" phenomenon occurs, it does legitimately invite explanation beyond merely identifying it as "unexplained," as if that response was itself an explanation. Moreover, in principle what is mysterious, or unexplained, might well strongly imply a "supernatural" explanation, such that leaving it "unexplained" reveals only a reluctance to apply such an explanation.

As a potent example, suppose JS' first vision experience actually occurred (Just to be clear, I do not for a minute believe it did.) One might ask, how is this explained? Assuming JS was honest, sincere, psychologically normal, not on drugs, etc., the best explanation might well be that he actually had a religious experience involving celestial beings. To take such an experience, and simply label it "unexplained" betrays only a bias against "supernatural" explanations. Here, "unexplained" merely serves as a placeholder for, "I don't believe it." When one addresses personal religious experiences of a more modest phenomenology, "supernatural" explanations are still viable explanations beyond simply insisting that such experiences be labeled "unexplained" and summarily dismissed.

KOLOB: "What would establish the existence of a "god" would be evidence (observable, repeatable, verifiable) of a "god." There isn't any evidence of a "god," so I don't believe there is one. It's that simple. I don't toss aside that simple rational approach out of fear, incredulity, wishful thinking, hope, ignorance or anything else."

COMMENT: Here you are demanding "evidence" for God that goes beyond scientific principles of evidence. There is no way that any branch of science, even physics, limits its theoretical conclusions to such "evidence." String theory, as one example, has no such evidence to support it; it is based almost entirely upon a theoretical, and quite speculative, mathematical modeling. Yet, it enjoys wide appeal in the physics community. The soft sciences, and history, accept evidence all the time that is not observable, repeatable, or verifiable. So, if you want to hold religion to a given standard of evidence, you need to define such a standard that is consistent with "evidence" in other contexts. Otherwise, you evidentiary demands are merely rhetorical pronouncements without substance.

More importantly, there *is* evidence for God (in some sense) that is quite well known and acknowledged. You just reject such evidence, and apparently feel more comfortable in denying that it has evidential value. But to suggest, as you do repeatedly on the Board, that "there is no evidence for God," is nothing more than rhetorical nonsense. "Evidence" from scientific principles, is generally Bayesian. Essentially, it is any fact such that a proposed conclusion is more likely to be true than it would be in the absence of such fact. The standard is very open and loose. Rejection of theories, scientific or otherwise, of whatever kind, are virtually never based upon the lack of any evidence properly understood. They are based upon either insufficient evidence, or contrary evidence. A God conclusion based in whole or in part on evidence represents a subjective assessment of such evidence in cases where the metaphysical and ontological implications of such underlying facts are controversial.

Can you accept the fact that 'subjectively' some humans, in certain realms, become very prone to reject as true any statement that has a shadow of a doubt? But at the same time, they will accept on faith the truth of unverifiable statements made in other realms?

The handy name is prejudice, in the sense that we will lean in one direction in some instances, while leaning in the other direction in other instances.

I was on a jury a long time ago in which two LAPD officers (both White) said, under oath, that they were in a squad car, and that as they pulled into a parking lot behind a liquor store, they saw a group of at least eight Black men standing in a group. The group turned its back to the officers and they both swore they saw one of the men toss a small shiny item under a car. It was a stainless steel revolver. The man they said had tossed it was a ex-con, a felon, and was being tried on the charge of a felon in possession of a firearm. There were no witnesses, just the two LAPD officers and the defendant. We let him go. Because back then, pretty much nobody liked/respected LAPD.

It would seem that ghawd has many on RfM who consider him to be worthy of doubt and disdain.

If there is a ghawd, he has done a wonderful job of making himself appear to the equal of the Bell Shaped Curve. He could exist and no doubt he's a comfort to those who enjoy his company, but mere words will never bridge the gap between you and the atheists, of whatever stripe.

Doesn't mean I don't respect you. But I know how people talk about avid golfers behind our backs....

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> KOLOB: "I can't explain this, so it's a
> miracle/god."
>
> COMMENT: I agree that such an inference is
> fallacious, but that is not the inference that is
> usually made, if ever. It is not the lack of
> explanation that supports the inference, but the
> nature of the proposed phenomenon. No theist would
> say that for any phenomenon that can't be
> explained, a miracle is implied. The lack of
> alternative explanation is merely cited, if at
> all, as an invitation to provide an alternative
> explanation.

That WAS the "inference" that was made in the story referred to. In fact, it wasn't even "inference," it was a direct claim. You're generalizing, when the story and claim were specific.
And I know dozens of theists who do ineed say that anything that "science" can't explain is a miracle. Maybe YOU don't, but claiming "no theist" would is false. A great many do on a regular basis.


>
> KOLOB: "That's an argument from personal ignorance
> and incredulity. Both are fallacious -- meaning
> worthless for reaching a valid conclusion. For
> very good reasons."
>
> COMMENT: NO! When the context is not a dogmatic
> religious pronouncement, a suggested inference
> from some mysterious occurrence to God is usually
> a sincere attempt to understand the phenomenon in
> the face of limited knowledge—even if such a
> person favors a religious explanation.

The context here WAS a dogmatic religious pronouncement.
At any rate, no matter how "sincere" the desire is to understand is irrelevant. "We don't have an explanation" means just that. To claim an explanation in the fact of that correct statement is indeed the fallacy I mentioned.

> There is
> nothing wrong with that—even if it involves
> "supernatural" agency. If one takes the position
> that only materialist explanations count, then one
> begs the question.

That's not the position I took. I pointed out that "We don't have an explanation" means what it says. I didn't say "the explanation must be materialist."

> But, in any event, it is not
> fallacious to consider supernatural agency as an
> explanation for "mysterious" coincidences,
> although it might be problematic on other grounds;
> particularly in the face of a clear natural
> explanation.

It's not "fallacious" to propose it as an hypothesis; it is to claim "that's the cause." Which is what was done in this case. Even worse, how it's often expressed is, "The cause is god unless you can prove it isn't."

> KOLOB: "So there's no need for me (or anyone else)
> to "explain" something, or else it's "god."
> Unexplained doesn't mean "god did it," unexplained
> means unexplained. Some people can't live with
> unexplained, so they say "god did it" just so they
> have an explanation. I'm ok with "unexplained."
> Even though most of the time, there are
> explanations that don't involve all-powerful
> supernatural beings. Or anything of the sort.
>
> COMMENT: Again, this is a mistake. Although
> unexplained does not mean God did it, when any
> "mysterious" phenomenon occurs, it does
> legitimately invite explanation beyond merely
> identifying it as "unexplained," as if that
> response was itself an explanation.

The only "mistake" is to decide that "unexplained" means "god did it." Which, once again, was the case here. And lacking any evidence for ANY definitive explanation, "unexplained" is not only correct, but also the only honest response. Speculate all you want, but it's still "unexplained" until verifiable evidence explains it.
Another thing, in this case, is that the phenomenon wasn't "mysterious" at all. So the premise wasn't even valid.

> Moreover, in
> principle what is mysterious, or unexplained,
> might well strongly imply a "supernatural"
> explanation...

And there you went off the tracks. Once again, unexplained means unexplained. It doesn't mean "Oh, that strongly implies the supernatural." It also doesn't strongly imply "it's material." It doesn't imply ANYTHING other than "unexplained." That's the basis of the argument from ignorance fallacy -- don't make up or claim or imply explanations when you have NO knowledge.


>, such that leaving it "unexplained"
> reveals only a reluctance to apply such an
> explanation.

I addressed this in my post, that some people can't stand the accurate and honest "unexplained." So they "imply" other things. When you have no facts or evidence, it's unexplained. The only "reluctance" is to not fallaciously make up or imply explanations.

> As a potent example, suppose JS' first vision
> experience actually occurred (Just to be clear, I
> do not for a minute believe it did.) One might
> ask, how is this explained? Assuming JS was
> honest, sincere, psychologically normal, not on
> drugs, etc., the best explanation might well be
> that he actually had a religious experience
> involving celestial beings. To take such an
> experience, and simply label it "unexplained"
> betrays only a bias against "supernatural"
> explanations. Here, "unexplained" merely serves
> as a placeholder for, "I don't believe it." When
> one addresses personal religious experiences of a
> more modest phenomenology, "supernatural"
> explanations are still viable explanations beyond
> simply insisting that such experiences be labeled
> "unexplained" and summarily dismissed.

Since you can provide NO evidence for any of your proposed explanations, they're not explanations at all. They're hypotheses. Until (and if) evidence is available to verify or falsify one or more hypotheses, they're not explanations. And the honest and accurate position IS "unexplained." That's not a placeholder -- Smith's own claim, like your proposed "explanations," has no supporting evidence. So there's no reason to "believe" the original claim, nor your alternatives. Your "viable alternatives" aren't viable; they may be plausible, but not viable. And it's your kind of approach that believing mormons dismiss so easily, since you can't show evidence your plausible alternatives are any more valid than Smith's own story. They all lack evidence, so the claims are worthless all around.

> KOLOB: "What would establish the existence of a
> "god" would be evidence (observable, repeatable,
> verifiable) of a "god." There isn't any evidence
> of a "god," so I don't believe there is one. It's
> that simple. I don't toss aside that simple
> rational approach out of fear, incredulity,
> wishful thinking, hope, ignorance or anything
> else."
>
> COMMENT: Here you are demanding "evidence" for God
> that goes beyond scientific principles of
> evidence.

I didn't "demand" anything. I simply pointed out what would establish that a "god" existed, and stated there is no such evidence. That's not a "demand," it's an observation.


> There is no way that any branch of
> science, even physics, limits its theoretical
> conclusions to such "evidence." String theory, as
> one example, has no such evidence to support it;

...and "string theory" isn't claimed to be fact. And won't be until and if evidence shows it is.


> it is based almost entirely upon a theoretical,
> and quite speculative, mathematical modeling. Yet,
> it enjoys wide appeal in the physics community.

Yes, and everyone working in the field understands that it's not a fact established by evidence; they're treating it as an hypothesis, and working to find evidence for or against it.

> The soft sciences, and history, accept evidence
> all the time that is not observable, repeatable,
> or verifiable.

The "soft sciences" deal in probabilities, and say so -- and none of them are trying to establish the fact of claimed supernatural beings.


> So, if you want to hold religion
> to a given standard of evidence, you need to
> define such a standard that is consistent with
> "evidence" in other contexts.

The same standard as anything else that claims something exists factually. No difference.



> More importantly, there *is* evidence for God (in
> some sense) that is quite well known and
> acknowledged.

And that would be...? Notice the only people claim there is, and "acknowledge" supposed evidence, are those who already "believe" in one? How about that.

> You just reject such evidence, and
> apparently feel more comfortable in denying that
> it has evidential value. But to suggest, as you
> do repeatedly on the Board, that "there is no
> evidence for God," is nothing more than rhetorical
> nonsense.

No, it's a fact.
Feelings, subjective personal "experiences," etc. are not evidence. Period. They may be personally "convincing" to YOU (or the person who has them), but they're not evidence.


Thanks for the discussion, Henry :)

KOLOB: Notice the only people claim there is, and "acknowledge" supposed evidence, are those who already "believe" in one? How about that.

COMMENT: This is just nonsense. There are a lot of people, including well known scientists, past and present, that believe in God based upon scientific evidence; most notably the cosmological anthropic principle (fine-tuning of the universe.) Max Planck and John Polkinghorn are examples of each that come to mind, but there are numerous others. I am not saying they are right, of course, but their views ARE based upon evidence as they understand the term from their scientific backgrounds.

> You just reject such evidence, and
> apparently feel more comfortable in denying that
> it has evidential value. But to suggest, as you
> do repeatedly on the Board, that "there is no
> evidence for God," is nothing more than rhetorical
> nonsense.

KOLOB: No, it's a fact.
Feelings, subjective personal "experiences," etc. are not evidence. Period. They may be personally "convincing" to YOU (or the person who has them), but they're not evidence.

COMMENT: Announcing something to be "a fact" does not make it a fact. First, such evidence is NOT subjective just feelings. Second, I defined for you what evidence means in science, and invited you to provide a consistent alternative definition that applies across the board to science and religion. I pointed out quite clearly that your standard of "observable, repeatable, and verifiable" not only does not reflect actual science, but does not work.

Your response: "'string theory' isn't claimed to be fact. And won't be until and if evidence shows it is," entirely misses the point. String Theory is a viable, respected, and widely accepted, scientific theory without "verifiable, repeatable, and observable" evidence, whether confirmed as "fact" or not. You cannot impose strict standards of evidence for religion and then let science off the hook by allowing "evidence" that does not meet the same strict standards. So, do you have an alternative definition of "evidence," or are your repeated comments denying any evidence for God admittedly just rhetorical?

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT: This is just nonsense. There are a lot
> of people, including well known scientists, past
> and present, that believe in God based upon
> scientific evidence;

No, my friend -- THAT is nonsense. The "fine-tuning of the universe" for example is itself the same fallacy (argument from ignorance and incredulity) we were discussion -- you can't use it to dismiss another fallacy.
I can't help it if there are scientists who don't always use science in every decision, and who use fallacies -- but that's the case. That a working scientist 'believes' something based on fallacy doesn't mean his belief is science-based, it means he's a fallible human being.

> COMMENT: Announcing something to be "a fact" does
> not make it a fact.

I agree. However, it being a fact makes it a fact.

> Your response: "'string theory' isn't claimed to
> be fact. And won't be until and if evidence shows
> it is," entirely misses the point. String Theory
> is a viable, respected, and widely accepted,
> scientific theory without "verifiable, repeatable,
> and observable" evidence, whether confirmed as
> "fact" or not.

No, my friend, YOU missed the point. When you say "widely accepted," I'm assuming you mean "widely accepted as factual" -- am I wrong? That's not the case. It's not claimed to be factual. It's not stated scientifically as being established by evidence. It's a working hypothesis, undergoing research to SEE if it's factual or not. Those working on it will tell you flat out that there's no verifiable, repeatable, or observable evidence for it. None is claimed. There isn't any.

The same standard is applied to "god" claims, and there is also no evidence for them. If you want to call god-claims a working hypothesis undergoing research to SEE if it's factual or not, I suppose you can -- but the fact is there isn't anyone doing scientific research on "god" claims. Because the hypothesis (if you want to call it that) isn't either testable or falsifiable. That's the fault of the claims, by the way (which are often intentionally made to NOT be verifiable or falsifiable), not of the scientific method.

> You cannot impose strict standards
> of evidence for religion and then let science off
> the hook...

I don't. Same standards for both. Same standards for ALL claims of fact.
There is no evidence for any of the tens of thousands of claimed "god" things. None, zero, zip, nada.
That doesn't mean there ISN'T a god, of course.
But if there is one, it isn't most of the claimed ones, since most of those are already falsified by more than ample evidence (including darn near any version of "bible" god).

So if you are asserting that God exists, why don't you just prove to us that God exists? If you can't do it, then we are liable to go on not believing in God.


Did you know that I have fairies living in my yard? You really ought to believe me when I tell you this. No. I do not actually have any good evidence to prove it to you with. But because it is possible that there are fairies living in my yard, I insist that you believe me when I tell you that they are living there.

Henry I don't know what you believe. However,

Arguing with 'so called atheists on this board' (because they really "know" nothing they don't believe in exists or has 'adequate' evidence for) is like going around on a merry-go-round --- you don't make any progress you just get dizzy!

Many of these atheists believe in far more than Santa Clause though because they believe our 'transparent' government that hires psychics, mediums, remote viewers, past life regression hypnotists, and a ton of scientists, etc. will provide 'all' the classified results the government gets ----- out of their basic goodness and since taxpayers are paying millions for this 'classified research, etc.)".

But if this helps aid in your recovery from Mormonism ----- good luck!

spiritist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Arguing with 'so called atheists on this board'
> (because they really "know" nothing they don't
> believe in exists or has 'adequate' evidence for)

spiritist, I ignore most of the stuff you post here, as you're usually just giving your own outrageous stories, rather than making claims of fact.
However, when you start claiming to know what I do or don't believe or know, and to know better than I do, I draw the line.
Please stop pretending you know what I (or any other atheist or anyone else) knows or believes. Because you don't. And your somewhat insulting generalizations are beyond ridiculous.

Well we both share a common belief in each others 'generalizations'.

Why not start with the natural rather than the supernatural explanations for the unknown? The plausible, the possible.

Work out from the known instead if in from the fantasy.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case127.htm

https://youtu.be/_pKC11SDnog

http://sparkster.hubpages.com/hub/The-Most-Remarkable-UFOAlien-Incident-In-History-1994-Ruwa-Zimbabwe

There's more evidence of this than say wine making, healings or calling lightning down. Hmmm? Maybe God is in a UFO?

To make this absurd claim you need have a "Gullible" gene..
But don't worry, you are not alone..Sandra Tanner, Grant Palmer can keep you company in that department.

One thing is sure; believing in that absurd "SkyDaddy" has nothing to do with intelligence/stupidity...