Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 26 of 28 FirstFirst ... 16 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LastLast
Results 501 to 520 of 559
  1. #501
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    708
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    just add whatever you think would separate the Fed Ex belief from a theistic belief
    Which is what I'm trying to explain to you:
    If I told you I had a pet dog named Sparky, would you believe me? Why/Why not?

  2. #502
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,084
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Which is what I'm trying to explain to you:
    If I told you I had a pet dog named Sparky, would you believe me? Why/Why not?
    Since you could lie, I don't know for sure it I can believe that you own a dog named Sparky.

    But I will say the claim is believable. And my reasoning for finding it believable is I know from experience that people own dogs and the name "Sparky" seems like a name someone would give a dog so even if you are lying about your own dog, from experience of the world, I find the claim that there are dogs named Sparky to not only be believable but incredibly likely. So it's like my Fed Ex claim in that it corresponds to known mundane reality. People go to Fed Ex and people have dogs named Sparky.

    And a question:
    Is a "justifiable belief":

    1. A belief one is justified in having.
    or
    2. A belief that one can convince someone else is justifiable.
    Last edited by mican333; August 23rd, 2018 at 12:38 PM.

  3. #503
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    708
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But I will say the claim is believable.
    So far so good.
    Now, if instead I told you that I had a pet dragon named Sparky, would you believe me? Why/Why not?
    What accounts for the difference in the believability you'd ascribe to both claims?

  4. #504
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,084
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    So far so good.
    Now, if instead I told you that I had a pet dragon named Sparky, would you believe me? Why/Why not?
    What accounts for the difference in the believability you'd ascribe to both claims?
    By all evidence, Dragons don't exist.

    If they ever existed in the past, they clearly died out a long time ago and therefore I can't see how you could attain one. Likewise no one has ever seriously claimed that dragons do currently exist so your claim likewise does not correspond to anyone else' claims regarding dragons. I also have very good reason to not take your claim seriously since I have very good reason to believe that you are not sincerely forwarding that you own a dragon - you are forwarding the claim as a hypothetical and not attempting to portray a truthful fact about yourself.

    So I have numerous good reasons to not believe that you actually own a dragon.

    And I have no good reason to think that you haven't engaged in mundane scenarios like own a dog.


    And a question:
    Is a "justifiable belief":

    1. A belief one is justified in having.
    or
    2. A belief that one can convince someone else is justifiable.

    I've been good enough to answer your questions. Please return the favor and answer mine.
    Last edited by mican333; August 23rd, 2018 at 01:30 PM.

  5. #505
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    708
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And a question:
    Is a "justifiable belief":

    1. A belief one is justified in having.
    or
    2. A belief that one can convince someone else is justifiable.
    I couldn't tell you, since I have not used the term "justifiable", and wouldn't want to confuse it with the OP's terminology of whether a theistic belief is "rationally justified". I guess "justifiable" is something that can be justified. So in that case, one might say all beliefs are possibly "justifiable", but I'm not sure that's true. There might be belief which are not possible to justify. It would depend on whether one can provide rational justification for a belief.

    In terms of the difference between your 1 & 2, I'd say there's no difference in the context of the OP. The justification an individual privately thinks makes their belief rationally justified might turn out to be flawed when subjected to scrutiny through rational discourse. Which is why throughout this thread I've invited those who think they have rational justification for their specific theistic beliefs to share it.

  6. #506
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,084
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    In terms of the difference between your 1 & 2, I'd say there's no difference in the context of the OP. The justification an individual privately thinks makes their belief rationally justified might turn out to be flawed when subjected to scrutiny through rational discourse.
    There's a huge difference between 1 and 2.

    Sometimes people do have incredible things happen to them - such as amazing coincidences. Amazing coincidences can be explained without resorting to magical thinking or anything. Out of all occurring events, occasionally highly unlikely events happen by sheer chance. They are extremely rare but they do happen and one happened within my family (not going bother going into details).

    Since I was there when the event happened and it did indeed happen, then I am internally rationally justified in believing it happened, right? But since the event was so incredible, it's not unreasonable for people to not believe that it happened when I tell them about it and therefore by that standard, my belief in the event is not rationally justified.

    So assuming that I had an incredible experience that I can never convince anyone that it actually happened, is my belief rationally justified or not?

  7. #507
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    708
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    By all evidence, Dragons don't exist.
    So a claim involving something which has not been demonstrated to exist is subject to stricter requirements for justification. This is one of the concepts behind the principle of proportionality, which you obviously already understood, and which applies when comparing theistic claims and FedEx.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I've been good enough to answer your questions. Please return the favor and answer mine.
    Dude, seriously, check the time stamps on posts before you get all snarky about someone not responding to your questions. I posted my response @ 3:34pm, and you edited to add the question afterwards @ 3:38pm - a whole 45 mins. after you made the post.

    ---------- Post added at 04:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:40 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    There's a huge difference between 1 and 2.

    Sometimes people do have incredible things happen to them - such as amazing coincidences. Amazing coincidences can be explained without resorting to magical thinking or anything. Out of all occurring events, occasionally highly unlikely events happen by sheer chance. They are extremely rare but they do happen and one happened within my family (not going bother going into details).

    Since I was there when the event happened and it did indeed happen, then I am internally rationally justified in believing it happened, right? But since the event was so incredible, it's not unreasonable for people to not believe that it happened when I tell them about it and therefore by that standard, my belief in the event is not rationally justified.
    Again, for the purposes of the OP, there is no difference. The justification an individual privately thinks makes their belief rationally justified might turn out to be flawed when subjected to scrutiny through rational discourse. Which is why throughout this thread I've invited those who think they have rational justification for their specific theistic beliefs to share it.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So assuming that I had an incredible experience that I can never convince anyone that it actually happened, is my belief rationally justified or not?
    We've already been down this road, and I have no interest in wasting time going down it again. If you have some specific theistic belief(s) which you think you have rational justification for, feel free to share it.

  8. #508
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,084
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    So a claim involving something which has not been demonstrated to exist is subject to stricter requirements for justification.
    Sure. And you need to identify where the line is before you can hold that a whole category of beliefs are not rationally justified.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Dude, seriously, check the time stamps on posts before you get all snarky about someone not responding to your questions. I posted my response @ 3:34pm, and you edited to add the question afterwards @ 3:38pm - a whole 45 mins. after you made the post.
    I assumed that when you make a post, you've completed your response to my post and what's missing is not being addressed. But now that I see that you answer a portion, post it, and answer some more later, I understand that you are responding in that fashion.

    But I don't want to skip around like that so I'll just hold off responding to your posts until I see that all points have been addressed.

    ---------- Post added at 04:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:48 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, for the purposes of the OP, there is no difference. The justification an individual privately thinks makes their belief rationally justified might turn out to be flawed when subjected to scrutiny through rational discourse.
    It might. Or alternatively, it might be confirmed as a rational belief by others when examined.

    But what if the belief is never spoken of to another and therefore is never examined by others? How do you determine if that belief is rationally justified or not?

    I mean I discussed my belief that I went to Fed Ex and I'm sure you agree that I have a rational belief that I went there but I believe I did a bunch of other things and I'm not going to tell you about them. So how do I know if my belief that I did X is justified if I don't tell someone about it?

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    We've already been down this road, and I have no interest in wasting time going down it again. If you have some specific theistic belief(s) which you think you have rational justification for, feel free to share it.
    Shifting the burden. The OP states that theistic beliefs are not rationally justified. So it's not up to me to show you that my belief is justified. It's up to you to show that ALL theistic beliefs are not justified.

    And likewise that means that there has to be a clear standard of what constitutes a justifiable belief and then it has to be shown that all theistic beliefs fail the test.

  9. #509
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    708
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Sure. And you need to identify where the line is before you can hold that a whole category of beliefs are not rationally justified.
    You already identified the line, and with minimal guidance, might I add: a claim involving something which has or has not been demonstrated to exist. I have to say, this penchant of some ODNers for pretending they don't know what going on in their own heads is getting pretty lame, although I admire the conviction behind it!

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I assumed that when you make a post, you've completed your response to my post and what's missing is not being addressed.
    I understand that, which is why I recommended that you first check the time stamps, since in this case, the "what's missing" part wasn't "not being addressed", but was added after I had already posted. If you had checked the time stamps, you would have noticed that I could not have possibly responded at 3:34 (my post #503) to a question you asked at 3:38 (your edit to post #502).

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It might. Or alternatively, it might be confirmed as a rational belief by others when examined.
    Of course. That's what we're here to discuss.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But what if the belief is never spoken of to another and therefore is never examined by others? How do you determine if that belief is rationally justified or not?
    We can't, since it would depend on the justification the holder of the belief thinks they have, which we have no knowledge of. The null hypothesis stipulates that we would have to default to "it's not rationally justified". But again, in order for us to discuss it and confirm, we're necessarily moving from #1 to #2, where the justification is subject to scrutiny through rational discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I mean I discussed my belief that I went to Fed Ex and I'm sure you agree that I have a rational belief that I went there but I believe I did a bunch of other things and I'm not going to tell you about them. So how do I know if my belief that I did X is justified if I don't tell someone about it?
    Again, it would depend on what justification you think you have for the belief that you had those experiences. If you'd like, we can discuss it, but again, that necessarily moves us from #1 to #2.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Shifting the burden. The OP states that theistic beliefs are not rationally justified. So it's not up to me to show you that my belief is justified. It's up to you to show that ALL theistic beliefs are not justified.
    I've already explained the purpose of the OP, and there are theists participating without problems. But, simply put, we must always first accept the null hypothesis, which in this case would be that nothing is rationally justified until rational justification is provided. We don't simply assume that something is or might be rationally justified just because we haven't heard what the claim is or what the justification is. It's a bit like how something isn't by default possible just because we currently have no demonstration that it is impossible.

  10. #510
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,084
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    You already identified the line, and with minimal guidance, might I add: a claim involving something which has or has not been demonstrated to exist.
    So how does that pertain to my belief that I went to Fed Ex yesterday? I certainly cannot demonstrate that I went there.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    We can't, since it would depend on the justification the holder of the belief thinks they have, which we have no knowledge of. The null hypothesis stipulates that we would have to default to "it's not rationally justified". But again, in order for us to discuss it and confirm, we're necessarily moving from #1 to #2, where the justification is subject to scrutiny through rational discourse.
    So I'm not rationally justified in believing that I went to Fed Ex until I justify this belief to others? And the null hypothesis states that the default is I'm not rationally justified in believing this?



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, it would depend on what justification you think you have for the belief that you had those experiences. If you'd like, we can discuss it, but again, that necessarily moves us from #1 to #2.
    I don't think I need to justify my belief that I went to Fed Ex in order for the belief to be "rationally justified". I don't even need to mention it to you at all in order for it to be rationally justified.

    And that seems to be the flaw in your argument. You have set criteria that doesn't make much sense. OF COURSE if one has a vivid memory of running a particular errand in the recent past they are rationally justified in believing that they ran the errand. And any set of criteria that would hold that that they are not rationally justified in thinking that they did that is a very flawed set of criteria.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I've already explained the purpose of the OP, and there are theists participating without problems. But, simply put, we must always first accept the null hypothesis, which in this case would be that nothing is rationally justified until rational justification is provided. We don't simply assume that something is or might be rationally justified just because we haven't heard what the claim is or what the justification is. It's a bit like how something isn't by default possible just because we currently have no demonstration that it is impossible.
    I'm reasonably sure that you are misapplying the null hypothesis. For one, the null hypothesis applies to scientific hypothesis, not any thought a person may have. And I'm also pretty sure that the null hypothesis makes no mention of "rationally justified".

    So if you are going invoke the null hypothesis to declare that my belief that I went to Fed Ex is not rationally justified, you will need to support that with support that the null hypothesis does indeed say that one cannot rationally justify thinking that something is true unless they demonstrate that it is so to others.

  11. #511
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    708
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So how does that pertain to my belief that I went to Fed Ex yesterday? I certainly cannot demonstrate that I went there.
    Huh? It pertains to your claim because it involves something which has been demonstrated to exist: FedEx.
    You said so yourself, even: "So it's like my Fed Ex claim in that it corresponds to known mundane reality.
    And again with: "People go to Fed Ex and people have dogs named Sparky."
    And when I confirmed the principle you yourself employed with the dog vs. dragon example and how it applies to your FedEx example vs. theistic claims, you did not dispute this statement: "So a claim involving something which has not been demonstrated to exist is subject to stricter requirements for justification. This is one of the concepts behind the principle of proportionality, which you obviously already understood, and which applies when comparing theistic claims and FedEx."

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So I'm not rationally justified in believing that I went to Fed Ex until I justify this belief to others?
    Where did I say that? You yourself already provided the justification for the FedEx experience. You provided the detail that it's a mundane claim, and you yourself already explained why one would be justified in believing such a claim vs. other, non-mundane claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And the null hypothesis states that the default is I'm not rationally justified in believing this?
    Again, no. If you had insisted on maintaining the FedEx as one of your mystery experiences, without providing any information about it or rational justification for it, then the null hypothesis would apply, since I'd have no way of knowing anything about your experience and would therefore need to conclude that it isn't justified.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I don't think I need to justify my belief that I went to Fed Ex in order for the belief to be "rationally justified". I don't even need to mention it to you at all in order for it to be rationally justified.
    Again, if we're discussing whether belief X is rationally justified, and we have no information about belief X, then the null hypothesis forces us to conclude that it is not justified until justification is provided. The moment you start mentioning details like belief X involving something mundane like FedEx, then we're already at #2 and discussing the justification. If you don't mention it, and privately maintain that you're justified in believing in FedEx because of the justification you yourself already proved that you are able to rationalize, then you've necessarily already gotten past the null hypothesis. Really, it isn't rocket science. You seem be trying to mix up different situations & claims like FedEx and theistic claims, and known and unknown claims, or claims for which justification is or isn't provided, when you've already demonstrated that you know what's going on when the principle of proportionality is employed.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And that seems to be the flaw in your argument. You have set criteria that doesn't make much sense.
    I've explained the criteria behind the principle of proportionality, and you've demonstrated that you agree with this.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    OF COURSE if one has a vivid memory of running a particular errand in the recent past they are rationally justified in believing that they ran the errand.
    You are now discussing a different criteria than what we were discussing. Whether a memory is vivid is a separate consideration, and would still be subject to the principle of proportionality, which you yourself have already demonstrated.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And any set of criteria that would hold that that they are not rationally justified in thinking that they did that is a very flawed set of criteria.
    Again, the criteria we were discussing was that which is considered as part of the principle of proportionality, which you yourself have already demonstrated is valid.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I'm reasonably sure that you are misapplying the null hypothesis. For one, the null hypothesis applies to scientific hypothesis, not any thought a person may have.
    The null hypothesis is based on basic logic and can be and is applied quite broadly. Another example can be found in the Jelly-Bean Jar. When someone claims that the number of Jelly-Beans is odd, and you reject that claim, you are holding to the null hypothesis, and not necessarily claiming that the number is even. Likewise, as before, something is not possible just because we have no demonstration that it's impossible.

    The null hypothesis is used and referred-to by name in statistics and science, yes, but because of the underlying logic behind it, it also applies to any hypothesis, including the kind of claims we're discussing. Just because the principle and terminology is expressed in a scientific way does not mean that the principle cannot apply in other areas where we are employing rational skepticism in order to reach valid conclusions, or to avoid reaching invalid ones. You can literally take any hypothesis, regardless of whether it is scientific or an everyday claim, and there is a null hypothesis associated with it. It is the default position to take of withholding belief in any claim until it is supported.

    And could it really be any other way? Would you really say that something can be considered rationally justified before there is rational justification for it?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And I'm also pretty sure that the null hypothesis makes no mention of "rationally justified".
    Then you obviously don't understand it. The null hypothesis changes depending on the claim being considered. The claim that something is rationally justified is subject to the null hypothesis, which in the case of claims like "this is rationally justified" would be something like "something is not rationally justified until there is rational justification for it".

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So if you are going invoke the null hypothesis to declare that my belief that I went to Fed Ex is not rationally justified
    And I didn't do anything of the sort. I invoked the null hypothesis for claims for which no justification is provided.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    you will need to support that with support that the null hypothesis does indeed say that one cannot rationally justify thinking that something is true unless they demonstrate that it is so to others.
    Again, this is not what the null hypothesis states, and not what I've claimed it states.

    But again, we've already been down this road, and I have no interest in wasting further time going down it again. You've already demonstrated for yourself the validity of the principle of proportionality, which refutes your FedEx example with which you began your "fresh start", and the null hypothesis supports that a belief is not rationally justified until there is rational justification for it.

    If you have some specific theistic belief(s) which you think you have rational justification for, feel free to share it. Other statements will be disregarded as unrelated to the OP.

  12. #512
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,084
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Huh? It pertains to your claim because it involves something which has been demonstrated to exist: FedEx.
    You said so yourself, even: "So it's like my Fed Ex claim in that it corresponds to known mundane reality.
    And again with: "People go to Fed Ex and people have dogs named Sparky."
    And when I confirmed the principle you yourself employed with the dog vs. dragon example and how it applies to your FedEx example vs. theistic claims, you did not dispute this statement: "So a claim involving something which has not been demonstrated to exist is subject to stricter requirements for justification. This is one of the concepts behind the principle of proportionality, which you obviously already understood, and which applies when comparing theistic claims and FedEx."
    Which doesn't address my criticism of your criteria.

    Yes, MY criteria says that if one has a vivid memory of mundane events, they are rationally justified in believing that such events happened. But again, that's MY criteria.

    As far as I can tell, you are using criteria that holds that my belief that I went to Fed Ex is NOT rationally justified. I mean the null hypothesis argument you are forwarding would hold that my belief that I went to Fed Ex is not rationally justified unless I can show evidence that I went. And since I can't show evidence, my belief that I went to Fed Ex is not rationally justified, according to the criteria you are forwarding.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Where did I say that?
    When I asked how do we determine if my Fed Ex belief is justified, you said:

    "We can't, since it would depend on the justification the holder of the belief thinks they have, which we have no knowledge of."

    Again, MY criteria is that the belief in one's own mundane experience IS rationally justified. You said that we can't determine if such a belief is justified until others examine it.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    You are now discussing a different criteria than what we were discussing. Whether a memory is vivid is a separate consideration, and would still be subject to the principle of proportionality, which you yourself have already demonstrated.
    I do agree that the more incredible the experience is, the harder it is to justify.

    But if ALL theistic beliefs are not rationally justified, that means that every single theistic belief that one may have falls on the "not justified" side of the line. If that is true, that means that:
    1. There is a standard for where the line is (and no, I never held that anything that falls short of mundane is on the other side of the line)
    2. And any theistic belief that one may have falls on that other side of the line.

    I do not see any valid criteria from you (as it seems that mundane experiences that aren't examined by a third party can't be considered justified) so I don't think you've made a valid case that all theistic beliefs fall short.

    And the null hypothesis does not allow for proportionality until one provides evidence for the claim. In other words, if one does not provide evidence supporting a belief, the belief that I went to Fed Ex and the belief that pink gnomes live in my underwear are equally rejected (since all claims are equally rejected until evidence is provided).

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The null hypothesis is based on basic logic and can be and is applied quite broadly. Another example can be found in the Jelly-Bean Jar. When someone claims that the number of Jelly-Beans is odd, and you reject that claim, you are holding to the null hypothesis, and not necessarily claiming that the number is even.
    But let's say that the person filled the jar themselves and counted as they filled and counted, say, 305 jelly beans. If understand correctly, the null hypothesis would still apply and his claim that there are an odd number of beans is rejected.

    But they are rationally justified in believing that there are an odd number of beans themselves since they themselves counted an odd number.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The null hypothesis is used and referred-to by name in statistics and science, yes, but because of the underlying logic behind it, it also applies to any hypothesis, including the kind of claims we're discussing. Just because the principle and terminology is expressed in a scientific way does not mean that the principle cannot apply in other areas where we are employing rational skepticism in order to reach valid conclusions, or to avoid reaching invalid ones. You can literally take any hypothesis, regardless of whether it is scientific or an everyday claim, and there is a null hypothesis associated with it. It is the default position to take of withholding belief in any claim until it is supported.
    But that does not address whether a person is rationally justified in holding that belief.

    Going back to my Fed Ex scenario. Going by the null hypothesis, you should not believe that I went to Fed Ex until I provide evidence that I went. But that does not mean that I'm not rationally justified in thinking that I myself went to Fed Ex. So the null hypothesis does not hold that I am not rationally justified in believing that I went to Fed Ex, right? It just says that others should not accept that I went unless I show that I went. Right?


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    And could it really be any other way? Would you really say that something can be considered rationally justified before there is rational justification for it?
    Sure, and my vivid memory of going to Fed Ex means that I am rationally justified in thinking that I went to Fed Ex.

    By my best understanding, the null hypothesis applies ONLY to those who are examining a claim and what THEY should or should not accept. The null hypothesis says absolutely nothing about beliefs that are not communicated to other and therefore has nothing to say in whether I am justified in believing that I went to Fed Ex or whether I am justified in believing in God.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Then you obviously don't understand it. The null hypothesis changes depending on the claim being considered. The claim that something is rationally justified is subject to the null hypothesis, which in the case of claims like "this is rationally justified" would be something like "something is not rationally justified until there is rational justification for it".
    I think you don't understand the null hypothesis well enough if you think that it addresses whether a belief in rationally justified. And since it is YOUR argument, it is YOUR burden to support the issue.

    So SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the null hypothesis can be used to determine if a thought is rationally justified. And please use a link to a source that addresses the null hypothesis. Since I think you are operating under a misunderstanding, further explain what you think regarding the null hypothesis will not do.
    Last edited by mican333; August 24th, 2018 at 08:56 AM.

  13. #513
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund
    Can you define what you mean by the term "faith"?
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Belief in something without evidence.
    This is not necessarily true. It depends how you use the term. You are over generalizing and placing everyone's faith in the same category. EVERYONE has faith in something. I have faith that the laws of logic exist, yet I can't see them, they are not tangible or material in nature, but without them nothing else could be explained. My faith is a reasonable faith. Some faiths are not. I do not believe an atheist has a reasonable faith that there is no God, or no evidence of God. He is blinded by his worldview bias.

    1. confidence or trust in a person or thing

    2. belief that is not based on proof

    3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion

    4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.

    5. a system of religious belief

    6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.

    7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.

    8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

    Any belief can be a true or false belief, depending on whether or not it corresponds to what is real. That is what Mican was getting across in his example of the red car. It is a true belief if it matches what is real. The problem arises with subjective, relative human beings in how they know (epistemology), how well they explain and can justify their belief system.

    Faith is a trust in something or someone, sometimes with and sometimes without reasonable evidence. The Christian faith is a reasonable faith and I'm working on a response to your previous post in which I see a number of errors as well as a number of claims that I will expound upon such as your belief that atheism is not a worldview.

    Peter

  14. #514
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    708
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Which doesn't address my criticism of your criteria.
    Yes, MY criteria says that if one has a vivid memory of mundane events, they are rationally justified in believing that such events happened. But again, that's MY criteria.
    Your stated criteria seems to indicate that unless my Fed Ex claim is not examined by others who decide that it is rationally justified, then it's not a rationally justified belief.
    Wrong. My stated criteria is "a claim involving something which has or has not been demonstrated to exist". You've already granted this as valid.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    When I asked how do we determine if my Fed Ex belief is justified, you said:
    "We can't, since it would depend on the justification the holder of the belief thinks they have, which we have no knowledge of."
    Again, MY criteria is that the belief in one's own mundane experience IS rationally justified. You said that we can't determine if such a belief is justified until others examine it.
    Wrong. You are yet again mixing up different situations & claims like FedEx and theistic claims, and known and unknown claims, or claims for which justification is or isn't provided. You did not ask how we determined if your FedEx belief if justified.
    Here's the exchange again:
    1. Mican: But what if the belief is never spoken of to another and therefore is never examined by others? How do you determine if that belief is rationally justified or not?
    2. FB: We can't, since it would depend on the justification the holder of the belief thinks they have, which we have no knowledge of.

    You then claimed that I was saying that you are "not rationally justified in believing that I went to Fed Ex until I justify this belief to others", which is false, since you did not mention FedEx at all in #1.
    In #2 I responded that it would depend on the justification, which we have no knowledge of, since you did not mention FedEx. As soon as you mention FedEx, we are able to consider the justification, since we do know something about the experience.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But if ALL theistic beliefs are not rationally justified, that means that every single theistic belief that one may have falls on the "not justified" side of the line.
    Until rational justification is provided for them, sure. It hasn't been, so they aren't.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    1. There is a standard for where the line is (and no, I never held that anything that falls short of mundane is on the other side of the line)
    The line between justified/un-justified is whether something has been justified.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    2. And any theistic belief that one may have falls on that other side of the line.
    If it lack justification, yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I do not see any valid criteria from you (as it seems that mundane experiences that aren't examined by a third party can't be considered justified)
    I never made any such statement. What I said was that if there is absolutely no demonstration or information about a claim being rationally justified, then the null hypothesis states that it isn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    so I don't think you've made a valid case that all theistic beliefs fall short.
    Beliefs lacking rational justification fall short. This is the null hypothesis.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But let's say that the person filled the jar themselves and counted as they filled and counted, say, 305 jelly beans.
    Then this person has rational justification for claiming the number is odd, since they've had the mundane experience confirming the number.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If understand correctly, the null hypothesis would still apply and his claim that there are an odd number of beans is rejected.
    For anyone who is met with nothing more than the claim and lacks the evidence, yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But they are rationally justified in believing that there are an odd number of beans themselves.
    Yes, since they have rational justification.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    As far as I know, the null hypothesis is not about "rationally justified" and you have not supported that it is.
    Nor have I claimed it is. Again, the null hypothesis changes depending on the claim being considered. The claim that something is rationally justified is subject to the null hypothesis, which in the case of claims like "this is rationally justified" would be something like "something is not rationally justified until there is rational justification for it".

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So I reject your argument regarding this and ask that you SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the null hypothesis addressed whether a belief is rationally justified.
    Your rejection fails due to it being the result of your own misunderstanding. Again, you can literally take any hypothesis, regardless of whether it is scientific or an everyday claim, and there is a null hypothesis associated with it. The claim "this is rationally justified" would have a null hypothesis like "something is not rationally justified until there is rational justification for it", until rational justification is provided, at which point the null hypothesis can be rejected, or "nullified", hence the name.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Going back to my Fed Ex scenario. Going by the null hypothesis, you should not believe that I went to Fed Ex until I provide evidence that I went.
    No, again, the support for claim that "this is rationally justified" is the information you provided, namely that it involves mundane things.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But that does not mean that I'm not rationally justified in thinking that I myself went to Fed Ex.
    Nor did I say that. Again, as I already stated back in post #505: "The justification an individual privately thinks makes their belief rationally justified might turn out to be flawed when subjected to scrutiny through rational discourse. Which is why throughout this thread I've invited those who think they have rational justification for their specific theistic beliefs to share it." If you'd like to have a discussion along those lines, fine. Otherwise, I'm going to move on and won't be responding further to unrelated arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So the null hypothesis does not hold that I am not rationally justified in believing that I went to Fed Ex, right?
    Again, the null hypothesis for the claim that "x is rationally justified" is "something is not rationally justified until there is rational justification for it". The fact that your FedEx by definition includes the rational justification of it being a mundane claim means the null hypothesis has been nullified. Anyone else, not knowing anything about it, would have to conclude according to the null hypothesis until it can be nullified.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Sure, and my vivid memory of going to Fed Ex means that I am rationally justified in thinking that I went to Fed Ex.
    Your FedEx example has nothing to do with the validity null hypothesis, since the mundanity of the claim serves to provide rational justification for it, thus nullifying the null hypothesis.

    So again, we're in agreement that the null hypothesis is valid, and that something is not rationally justified until there is rational justification for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I think you don't understand the null hypothesis well enough if you think that it addresses whether a belief in rationally justified. And since it is YOUR argument, it is YOUR burden to support the issue.
    Again, you misunderstand the point of the null hypothesis. It isn't meant to "address whether a belief [is] rationally justified". It simply sets out the logical default position one must hold in order to maintain rational skepticism. You already agreed to it anyway (something can't be considered rationally justified before there is rational justification for it).

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the null hypothesis can be used to determine if a thought is rationally justified.
    This is not a claim I've made. The null hypothesis isn't used to determine anything. It sets out the default position, to which you've already agreed.

    You've already demonstrated for yourself the validity of the principle of proportionality, which refutes your FedEx example with which you began your "fresh start", and you've failed to point out any valid issue with the default position of "something is not rationally justified until there is rational justification for it" (and even agreed with it), I'm going to move on now to other discussions which are related to the OP.

    ---------- Post added at 12:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:02 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    This is not necessarily true. It depends how you use the term. You are over generalizing and placing everyone's faith in the same category.
    I'll point out that I did clarify the definition right afterwards:
    The full definition - it really goes without saying - should be expressed as "belief in something without sufficient evidence".
    Some other definitions would work as well, since they encompass the same general idea:
    - "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof"
    - "firm belief in something for which there is no proof"
    - "belief that is not based on proof"
    - "strong or unshakable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence"

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    EVERYONE has faith in something.
    It depends on how you're using the term. According to the usage set out in the beginning of the debate, I can say that I personally strive to not have any faith in anything. What you're referring to with "faith" I would instead call "reasonable expectations based on available evidence". When someone says something like "I have faith that, when I flip the light switch, the light will turn on", what they mean in by "faith" that context is not the same as what they mean by "faith" when they talk about their religion. It is an equivocation fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    I have faith that the laws of logic exist, yet I can't see them, they are not tangible or material in nature, but without them nothing else could be explained.
    I've already refuted your incorrect statements about the laws of logic. Further use of such argumentation will be disregarded. In any case, this usage of "faith" falls under "reasonable expectations", and not the definition set out at the beginning (and above). As such, this example does not serve as an example of faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    I do not believe an atheist has a reasonable faith that there is no God
    This is a meaning of atheism which I don't hold to.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    or no evidence of God.
    Again, sufficient evidence. There may or may not be actual evidence of God (it would depend on how one defines "God", in the first place, as some are logically impossible), but since no sufficient evidence has been presented, then someone is not engaging in faith by not believing in a god.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    He is blinded by his worldview bias.
    Your unsupported opinion it noted.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    1. confidence or trust in a person or thing
    2. belief that is not based on proof
    3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion
    4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.
    5. a system of religious belief
    6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.
    7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.
    8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
    These are all different usages of the word "faith". Different usages means that the reasoning behind them is or isn't valid for completely different reasons. Nothing about the word being used in different ways makes one usage rational just because another one is. Again, this is an equivocation fallacy.

    For any usages which don't comport with the definitions I've set out above, the term for this debate will be "reasonable expectation based on available evidence", unless a more fitting term is deemed necessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Faith is a trust in something or someone, sometimes with and sometimes without reasonable evidence.
    For the purposes of this debate, the former (with sufficient evidence) should be referred to as "reasonable expectation based on available evidence", not faith - the latter (without sufficient evidence) is "faith".

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    your belief that atheism is not a worldview.
    Again, atheism is a single response to a single claim, nothing more. Simply put, all an atheist is, is someone who has not been convinced of theistic claims such as "deity X exists", and therefore does not believe that deity X exists. When discussing worldviews, there are a number of different and conflicting worldviews which atheists could hold to, and there are indeed atheists who hold to different views about the world & reality (methodological naturalism, philosophical naturalism, solipsim, humanism, nihilism, abiogenesis, panspermia, the list goes on and on). There is nothing about atheism (meaning the non-belief in a deity) which necessitates any one of these worldviews, and therefore, atheism itself is not a worldview.

  15. #515
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,084
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Wrong. My stated criteria is "a claim involving something which has or has not been demonstrated to exist". You've already granted this as valid.
    I do not consider that a valid basis for determining whether a belief is rationally justified and I doubt I said that it was (which is not to say it has no relevance at all).

    I agree that if something has been demonstrated to exist, then it's rational to believe it exists. But I don't agree that failing to demonstrate that something exists shows that it doesn't exist or it's irrational to believe that it does. I can't demonstrate that I went to Fed Ex and yet it's rational to think that I did.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Until rational justification is provided for them, sure. It hasn't been, so they aren't.
    That's engaging in the argument from ignorance fallacy. You are essentially saying that since you are unaware of any rational justification for theistic beliefs, you conclude that such a thing does not exist.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The line between justified/un-justified is whether something has been justified.
    And you have not provided a valid line for when something has been justified.

    If you provide no criteria for when a believe has attained "justification", then you have no basis to determine when it has happened and likewise no basis to determine when it has not happened.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    What I said was that if there is absolutely no demonstration or information about a claim being rationally justified, then the null hypothesis states that it isn't.
    Not as far as I can see. Here is the null hypothesis.

    The null hypothesis, H0 is the commonly accepted fact; it is the opposite of the alternate hypothesis. Researchers work to reject, nullify or disprove the null hypothesis. Researchers come up with an alternate hypothesis, one that they think explains a phenomenon, and then work to reject the null hypothesis.

    The word “null” in this context means that it’s a commonly accepted fact that researchers work to nullify. It doesn’t mean that the statement is null itself! (Perhaps the term should be called the “nullifiable hypothesis” as that might cause less confusion).

    Why Do I need to Test it? Why not just prove an alternate one?

    The short answer is, as a scientist, you are required to; It’s part of the scientific process. Science uses a battery of processes to prove or disprove theories, making sure than any new hypothesis has no flaws. Including both a null and an alternate hypothesis is one safeguard to ensure your research isn’t flawed. Not including the null hypothesis in your research is considered very bad practice by the scientific community. If you set out to prove an alternate hypothesis without considering it, you are likely setting yourself up for failure. At a minimum, your experiment will likely not be taken seriously."


    http://www.statisticshowto.com/proba...thesis/#whatis

    So it is applied to scientific hypothesis and not just any claim and it does not weigh in on whether a claim is rationally justified. The term "rationally justified" is neither stated nor implied in the description.

    So I have fully supported that you are misusing the null hypothesis and if you want to maintain that you are not misusing it, you will need to support that. In the meantime, I maintain that any argument of yours regarding the null hypothesis is incorrect and therefore will not respond to them for that reason.

    And the argument "until a claim is shown to be rationally justified, it must be concluded that it is not" does have a term - it's called the Argument from Ignorance fallacy and is a logical error.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Nor did I say that. Again, as I already stated back in post #505: "The justification an individual privately thinks makes their belief rationally justified might turn out to be flawed when subjected to scrutiny through rational discourse. Which is why throughout this thread I've invited those who think they have rational justification for their specific theistic beliefs to share it." If you'd like to have a discussion along those lines, fine. Otherwise, I'm going to move on and won't be responding further to unrelated arguments.
    You can choose to not respond for any reason you want.

    But I have shown that you have not provided valid criteria for the position that all theistic beliefs are not rationally justified.

    And me providing an example theistic belief for discussion won't result in anything. First off, without a solid standard for when a theistic belief is justified or not, it seems that it's justification or lack thereof is left to your own judgement and surely a belief can't be proven to be unjustified just because you don't think it is. Secondly, if I provided a theistic belief and you did indeed prove that it's not rationally justified, that shows that ONE PARTICULAR belief is not justified which allows for the possibility that there are plenty of other beliefs that are justified.

    To argue that since no rational justification for theistic belief has been given, none must exist is to forward the argument from ignorance fallacy.

    Again, without valid criteria for determining when a belief is or is not justified, you have no basis to claim that any particular belief is not justified and your argument fails for that reason.
    Last edited by mican333; August 24th, 2018 at 03:10 PM.

  16. #516
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    708
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I do not consider that a valid basis for determining whether a belief is rationally justified and I doubt I said that it was (which is not to say it has no relevance at all).
    Nor did I say you do. The criteria applies to the principle of proportionality, which you've already agreed is valid.
    '
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I agree that if something has been demonstrated to exist, then it's rational to believe it exists ... I can't demonstrate that I went to Fed Ex and yet it's rational to think that I did.
    FedEx is what has been demonstrated to exist, and people going to FedEx is what has been demonstrated to exist.
    Again, "a claim involving something which has not been demonstrated to exist is subject to stricter requirements for justification. This is one of the concepts behind the principle of proportionality, which you obviously already understood, and which applies when comparing theistic claims and FedEx."

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    That's engaging in the argument from ignorance fallacy. You are essentially saying that since you are unaware of any rational justification for theistic beliefs, you conclude that such a thing does not exist.
    On what planet does "if rational justification hasn't been provided for something then it isn't rationally justified" mean the same as "if rational justification hasn't been provided for something then it doesn't exist"? My statements conform to the former, which you already agreed to.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And you have not provided a valid line for when something has been justified.
    I've already pointed out the standards which apply to claims. Again, they're the same ones we all utilize every day when deciding between claims about pet dogs vs. pet dragons. You've already agreed that at least one of the standards is valid.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    The term "rationally justified" is neither stated nor implied in the description.
    Nor is it required. "Rationally justified" is part of the claim to which the null hypothesis is applied. As I already explained:
    Again, the null hypothesis changes depending on the claim being considered.
    Your rejection fails due to it being the result of your own misunderstanding. Again, you can literally take any hypothesis, regardless of whether it is scientific or an everyday claim, and there is a null hypothesis associated with it. In this case, the claim "this is rationally justified" would have a null hypothesis like "something is not rationally justified until there is rational justification for it", until rational justification is provided, at which point the null hypothesis can be rejected, or "nullified", hence the name.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So I have fully supported that you are misusing the null hypothesis and if you want to maintain that you are not misusing it, you will need to support that.
    Yeah, sorry, but your objection that the definition of the null hypothesis lack the same words as an example of a specific claim's null hypothesis is simply absurd. Again, the null hypothesis is different for each claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    In the meantime, I maintain that any argument of yours regarding the null hypothesis is incorrect and therefore will not respond to them for that reason.
    Yes, I agree, you should not respond to any further discussion about the null hypothesis until you understand it.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And the argument "until a claim is shown to be rationally justified, it must be concluded that it is not" does have a term - it's called the Argument from Ignorance fallacy and is a logical error.
    You yet again demonstrate your lack of understanding of the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is not an argument used to reach a conclusion, it's the default position. Just like with the Jelly-Beans, until evidence is provided for the claim that the number is odd, the default position is to reject the claim that it is odd. And again, with the possible/impossible example, the default position is that something is not possible until it's possibility is supported, and it's not possible just because we have no demonstration that it's impossible.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But I have shown that you have not provided valid criteria for the position that all theistic beliefs are not rationally justified.
    Again, the default position as supported by the null hypothesis is that no beliefs are rationally justified until they are, and this includes theistic beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And me providing an example theistic belief for discussion won't result in anything.
    Sure it will. It'll result in you actually participating in a valuable discussion about whether a specific theistic belief is rationally justified instead of

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    First off, without a solid standard for when a theistic belief is justified or not, it seems that it's justification or lack thereof is left to your own judgement and surely a belief can't be proven to be unjustified just because you don't think it is.
    Well, no, but since we've already covered one such standard, and you've agreed that it is valid, then even just violating that one standard is enough to consider a claim not rationally justified.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Secondly, if I provided a theistic belief and you did indeed prove that it's not rationally justified, that shows that ONE PARTICULAR belief is not justified which allows for the possibility that there are plenty of other beliefs that are justified.
    I'm not actually sure that it is possible that there are theistic beliefs that are rationally justified. If you're claiming that it is possible that there are theistic beliefs which are rationally justified, then you need to support that claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    To argue that since no rational justification for theistic belief has been given, none must exist is to forward the argument from ignorance fallacy.
    And I've never argued that.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Again, without valid criteria for determining when a belief is or is not justified, you have no basis to claim that any particular belief is not justified and your argument fails for that reason.
    And again, we already have at least some criteria which is valid when considering the principle of proportionality, and not meeting that criteria means the principle is violated and the claim is not justified. Really, this was all already fleshed out by the time we got to your post 504, where you yourself reached the conclusion that something which has not been demonstrated to exist has higher requirements for justification than something which has.

    Anyway, I think we're done here. Your penchant for repeatedly misrepresenting my statements, mixing up different situations & claims (like FedEx and theistic claims, and known and unknown claims, and claims for which justification is or isn't provided), failure to comprehend some basic concepts about the logic behind how we approach claims despite my repeated explanation of them for you, makes it clear we're not going to get much further with this. You obviously think that playing games and focusing on pointless things which don't comport with the goal of the thread is a valuable way to spend your time. I don't.

    If you'd like to discuss a theistic belief which you think has rational justification for it, then go for it, otherwise, I'll let you have the last word and continue my discussions with the folks who do.
    Last edited by futureboy; August 24th, 2018 at 09:54 PM.

  17. #517
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,084
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    FedEx is what has been demonstrated to exist, and people going to FedEx is what has been demonstrated to exist.
    Again, "a claim involving something which has not been demonstrated to exist is subject to stricter requirements for justification. This is one of the concepts behind the principle of proportionality, which you obviously already understood, and which applies when comparing theistic claims and FedEx."
    But my specific claim that I went to Fed Ex yesterday has not been demonstrated to exist. It's possible that I lied about that and did not go to Fed Ex.

    "Demonstrated to exist" surely requires evidence of existence and therefore I would have to provided evidence that I went to Fed Ex before that one could say that I've demonstrated that the event exists.

    If not, then please define when X is "demonstrated to exist". Without proper definition, the phrase is meaningless and therefore is useless when determining if a belief is rationally justified.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    On what planet does "if rational justification hasn't been provided for something then it isn't rationally justified" mean the same as "if rational justification hasn't been provided for something then it doesn't exist"? My statements conform to the former, which you already agreed to.
    And you are invoking the argument from ignorance fallacy in the former.

    You are saying that until you see the evidence that X is rationally justified, you conclude that X is not rationally justified. But that does not allow for the fact that there could be evidence that X is rationally justified that you are not aware of. That is the very essence of the argument from ignorance fallacy. Your lack of awareness of something, in this case evidence the X is justified, does not mean that it does not exist.

    I mean you DO agree that there could be evidence that something is rationally justified but you just have not been made aware that said evidence exists, right? And therefore you not being aware (AKA ignorant of) reasoning that X is rationally justified does not mean that it's not rationally justified.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I've already pointed out the standards which apply to claims. Again, they're the same ones we all utilize every day when deciding between claims about pet dogs vs. pet dragons. You've already agreed that at least one of the standards is valid.
    Please state those standards. When it comes to the dog and dragon scenario, you asked me for MY reasoning why I would find one believable and the other one not and all I did was say why I found the claims believable or not and did not see them as setting any criteria for when a belief in rationally justified (especially since they don't even address if one is rationally justified in having his own beliefs but just whether an outsider would believe them).

    So I disagree that those questions set any standard for rationally justifying one own's belief.

    So again, please provide the standard.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Yeah, sorry, but your objection that the definition of the null hypothesis lack the same words as an example of a specific claim's null hypothesis is simply absurd. Again, the null hypothesis is different for each claim.
    I have supported that the null hypothesis has nothing to do with the standard claim but is a tool for challenging scientific hypothesis. You have supported NONE of your statements about the null hypothesis.

    "The null hypothesis, H0 is the commonly accepted fact; it is the opposite of the alternate hypothesis. Researchers work to reject, nullify or disprove the null hypothesis. Researchers come up with an alternate hypothesis, one that they think explains a phenomenon, and then work to reject the null hypothesis."

    http://www.statisticshowto.com/proba...thesis/#whatis

    So I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the null hypothesis applies to ALL claims instead of just scientific hypothesis.

    And to be clear, by ODN rules you are not allowed to repeat the claim that the null hypothesis applies to all claims or use that notion as a premise in your arguments until you support that it does as you have been challenged.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Yes, I agree, you should not respond to any further discussion about the null hypothesis until you understand it.
    Me: No, you don't understand the null hypothesis
    You: No, you don't understand the null hypothesis
    Me: No, you don't understand the null hypothesis
    etc. etc. etc.

    That's not how this debate works. I have directly challenged your use of the null hypothesis and now you have to support that your use is correct. Since I have found an article on the null hypothesis that seems to directly contradict one of your major assertions about the null hypothesis I do not have confidence that you adequately understand it and therefore do not accept your arguments that use it.

    And of course I could be wrong and your understanding is spot-on. And if that's true, you should be capable of finding an article on the null hypothesis that demonstrates that your usage is valid and when you do, I will have to agree with your usage and you can continue to use those premises. But until then, I reject your usage and since I've directly challenged your usage with support or retract, you can't continue to use it without support.

    Whether you choose to not support your claim regarding the null hypothesis or cannot do it is not relevant. You have to support your claim or cease making it.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    You yet again demonstrate your lack of understanding of the null hypothesis.
    (eye roll)

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The null hypothesis is not an argument used to reach a conclusion, it's the default position. Just like with the Jelly-Beans, until evidence is provided for the claim that the number is odd, the default position is to reject the claim that it is odd.
    But you do agree that if the person counts 305 jelly beans, HE is rationally justified in thinking that the number is odd. Remember, he has no evidence to show someone else. He can only say "I counted the jelly beans and there's an odd number". And if first-hand experience is not valid evidence, then his boss would reject the claim that there are 305 jelly beans. But the guy is still rationally justified in thinking the number is odd, right?

    By your own (mis)understanding, the null hypothesis says that the claim is to be rejected as a matter of course. But "rejected as a matter of course" is not the same thing as "thinking it is true is not rationally justified".

    Again, my claim that I went to Fed Ex would by rejected by your (mis)usage of the null hypothesis because I can provide no evidence that I went there and the person who is studying my claim has to be aware that I could be lying. But that does not mean that I'm not rationally justified in thinking that I went to Fed.

    So I have demonstrated that even you are correct in saying the null hypothesis says that all claims that are not proven must be rejected, that does not at all show that all claims that are not prove must be considered rationally unjustified (unless you are going to hold that my Fed Ex belief is rationally unjustified).


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, the default position as supported by the null hypothesis is that no beliefs are rationally justified until they are, and this includes theistic beliefs.
    I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the null hypothesis indicates that no beliefs are rationally justified until they are.

    Until you support that, it cannot be considered valid criteria for determining that the beliefs are or are not rationally justified.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Sure it will. It'll result in you actually participating in a valuable discussion about whether a specific theistic belief is rationally justified
    Assuming your goal is to support that ALL theistic beliefs are not rationally justified, it's not a valuable discussion to look at just one belief but instead a waste of time.

    Assuming you succeed in showing that belief A is not rationally justified, that does not show that belief B, C, D, E, F and the virtually unlimited number of other theistic beliefs are not justified.

    I claim Jesus lives under my porch, you show that that is an unjustified belief. That doesn't move the debate forward at all, does it?


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Well, no, but since we've already covered one such standard, and you've agreed that it is valid, then even just violating that one standard is enough to consider a claim not rationally justified.
    I know of no valid standard that you've provided.

    I've been using the Fed Ex example of a belief that IS rationally justified. OF COURSE if I have a vivid memory of going to Fed Ex, I'm justified in thinking that I went there. And it seems that most of the standards that you forward would hold that Fed EX is not rationally justified which means that the standards are flawed and rejected for that reason. And you vaguely mention some standard that I forwarded but while I explained why I would find one claim believable and another one not, that did not set any standard that could be applied to all beliefs and determine if they are rationally justified or not. My answers weren't even about whether one can justify their own belief but whether I would be likely to believe the claim. I would not believe that a person has a pet dragon but if somehow a miracle occurred and a person actually did have a pet dragon, then the person would be justified in thinking they had a pet dragon regardless of whether I believed him or not.

    So no, I know of no valid criteria from you. So if you have it, please provide clearly instead of vaguely referring to it.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I'm not actually sure that it is possible that there are theistic beliefs that are rationally justified. If you're claiming that it is possible that there are theistic beliefs which are rationally justified, then you need to support that claim.
    Shifting the burden.

    It's your claim that theistic beliefs are not rationally justified so you have the burden to show that none of them are rationally justified before I have any burden to show that at least some of them are or might be rationally justified.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    And again, we already have at least some criteria which is valid when considering the principle of proportionality, and not meeting that criteria means the principle is violated and the claim is not justified. Really, this was all already fleshed out by the time we got to your post 504, where you yourself reached the conclusion that something which has not been demonstrated to exist has higher requirements for justification than something which has.
    And "higher requirements" is relative. "I went to China" has a higher requirement that "I went to Fed Ex" but I don't think the China claim is not rationally justified just because it's less likely to have occurred than going to Fed Ex.

    There needs to be specific criteria to determine when a claim has "gone too far" to be considered not rationally justified.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Anyway, I think we're done here. Your penchant for repeatedly misrepresenting my statements, mixing up different situations & claims (like FedEx and theistic claims, and known and unknown claims, and claims for which justification is or isn't provided), failure to comprehend some basic concepts about the logic behind how we approach claims despite my repeated explanation of them for you, makes it clear we're not going to get much further with this. You obviously think that playing games and focusing on pointless things which don't comport with the goal of the thread is a valuable way to spend your time. I don't.
    What a load of horsesh*t. It looks to me like your back is against the wall and you are just using whatever lame excuse you can (which, true to form, contains a bunch of complaining) to exit the debate and say it's my fault. Sorry, I completely see through it.

    The fact is if we leave it here, all of my arguments stand. And therefore it stands that:

    1. You have not shown that you are using the null hypothesis correctly - and I've even supported that you have not
    2. You have provided no valid criteria for showing when a belief is rationally justified or not. Almost all of the criteria you forwarded, including what's in the OP, would render my belief that I went to Fed Ex as a not rational belief. I mean seriously, I'm challenging you on criteria for determining when a belief is rationally justified or not and you say I'm focusing on "pointless things which don't comport with the goal of the thread". What?????

    If you are fine with leaving our portion of the debate with it established that you have provided no valid criteria for when a belief is or is not rationally justified, that's fine with me. But then of course you cannot hope to show that ALL theistic beliefs are not rationally justified without establishing such criteria.

    So use whatever excuse you want to cease defending your criteria.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    If you'd like to discuss a theistic belief which you think has rational justification for it, then go for it
    I might take you up on that. But first a couple of questions.

    1. Would you accept a belief in life after death is a theistic belief even if it does not invoke a deity. Let's say that one believes that the spirit of a dead relative visited them but God/Jesus had no apparent involvement.

    2. Do you accept that the original burden is on you to show that the stated belief is not rationally justified? In other words, if I state a belief, you have the burden to show that it's not rationally justified before I have burden to show that it is?
    Last edited by mican333; August 25th, 2018 at 09:27 AM.

  18. #518
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    708
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It looks to me like your back is against the wall and you are just using whatever lame excuse you can (which, true to form, contains a bunch of complaining) to exit the debate and say it's my fault.
    Rationalize it how you want - I've repeatedly explained my position, pointed out the errors in your arguments with regard to the null hypothesis, as well as the numerous misrepresentations of my statements which you've made, and offered you opportunities to have a valuable discussion which aligns with the clear goal of the thread as I've repeatedly explained it, and which others have readily engaged.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    The fact is if we leave it here, all of my arguments stand.
    And again, they are irrelevant to the discussion the thread is intended to have.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    1. You have not shown that you are using the null hypothesis correctly - and I've even supported that you have not
    No, you've showed that you don't understand the null hypothesis. Your repeated claim that the definition of the null hypothesis must include the same words as a specific example of a null hypothesis proves that, and I've repeatedly explained for you that the null hypothesis isn't a specific hypothesis which contains any specific words, but changes according to the claim to which it applies. Further, your repeated claim that just because the terminology surrounding the null hypothesis is related to statistical science, then the logical principles behind it don't apply to any other claims also demonstrates your lack of understanding, even though I've repeatedly explained that, as well. But here's some more support:


    1. Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
    "In neither case is the null hypothesis or its alternative proven; the null hypothesis is tested with data and a decision is made based on how likely or unlikely the data are. This is analogous to the legal principle of presumption of innocence, in which a suspect or defendant is assumed to be innocent (null is not rejected) until proven guilty (null is rejected) beyond a reasonable doubt (to a statistically significant degree)."

    The reason it is "analogous to the legal principle of presumption of innocence", is because the logical principles behind both are valid and can apply to any claim.

    It's the same reason the null hypothesis is also mentioned on the Wikipedia page for the Burden of Proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden...f_(philosophy)
    Because the same logical principles behind the burden of proof are be expressed in terms of the null hypothesis when talking about statistics and therefore, the principle is valid and does apply to claims regardless of their scope.


    2. https://scienceornot.net/2012/12/04/...rden-of-proof/

    "In science, the default position about any relationship is that it does not exist. This position is called the “null hypothesis“. For a claim to be accepted, the proposer must present sufficient real-world evidence for the null hypothesis to be rejected."

    Here we have a clear explanation of how the default position, which is called the "null hypothesis" applies to claims regardless of their scope, which refutes your rejection.


    3. https://polyskeptic.com/2009/07/17/b...ll-hypothesis/
    "One of the primary ideas in skepticism is the idea of the null hypothesis. Now, I realize that in every day practical science this ideal is not a reality, but as a rule of scientific inquiry in general it is essential as a part of the philosophy of science. It basically says that you should wait for sufficient evidence before accepting a hypothesis as true. That is, you withhold belief until enough evidence, or at least rational justification, is given to accept something as having a basis in reality. Obviously the amount of evidence necessary to accept a claim is proportional to the claim;I don’t expect you to withhold belief in the claim that I ate pizza for dinner tonight; it’s not an extraordinary a claim that is worthy of serious skepticism, and accepting it even if false has little to no consequences generally. A supernatural being who created and controls aspects of the universe is a different matter, one worthy of skepticism and requiring good support to accept. As far as I have seen, no good support exists for such a claim."

    Here we have a simple explanation of the logic behind the null hypothesis, with some plain and simple real-world example claims, just like ours. This article also explains how the null hypothesis is a primary principle in skepticism itself. So there is no issue with applying the same principle to such claims, even though they're not strictly scientific/statistics-related.


    4. http://theconversation.com/explainer...pothesis-10757
    This is another source which supports that the logical principles behind the burden of proof and the null hypothesis do apply to claims regardless of their scope.
    It also offers some plain real-world examples, and also makes similar comparison between the burden of proof and the null hypothesis:

    "It might seem obvious, but until proven otherwise, the null hypothesis is true. As one classic textbook on statistics nicely puts it: As in a jury trial, the burden of proof rests with the alternative hypothesis; innocent until proven guilty … When you test a hypothesis, you must act as judge and jury, but you are not the prosecutor."


    Again, your assertion that, because it's termed in such a way as to explain it's use in the science of statistics, this means the logical principles behind the null hypothesis only apply to scientific/statistical claims is simply absurd.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Almost all of the criteria you forwarded, including what's in the OP, would render my belief that I went to Fed Ex as a not rational belief.
    Yes, the logically valid null hypothesis does render any claim unjustified until justification is provided. But by pointing out the details in your claim (FedEx being demonstrated to exist) and how it differs from supernatural claims, this then renders belief in the FedEx claim rational.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But then of course you cannot hope to show that ALL theistic beliefs are not rationally justified without establishing such criteria.
    I don't need to. The valid null hypothesis states that they are not until justification is provided.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So use whatever excuse you want to cease defending your criteria.
    Thank you, I will! In this case, it's because I'm tired of repeatedly explaining things to you which are relatively simple, but which you continue to mix up and misrepresent.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    1. Would you accept a belief in life after death is a theistic belief even if it does not invoke a deity. Let's say that one believes that the spirit of a dead relative visited them but God/Jesus had no apparent involvement.
    I would first ask for an explanation of what you think "life after death" means. But, generally, if it doesn't specifically invoke a deity, then I guess one wouldn't need to call it a theistic belief, but instead maybe a supernatural belief. But I'd say that the same requirements & principles would apply to those beliefs making them not rationally justified until justification is provided. So they could definitely be included in this thread if someone wanted to present such a claim as part of the "If you'd like to discuss a theistic belief which you think has rational justification" challenge.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    2. Do you accept that the original burden is on you to show that the stated belief is not rationally justified? In other words, if I state a belief, you have the burden to show that it's not rationally justified before I have burden to show that it is?
    No. The null hypothesis means that the default position is a rejection of any claim which has not met its burden of proof. But again, the burden would be proportional to the claim, so every-day mundane claims could be considered justified because the null hypothesis for them has already been nullified. For example: the claim "I went to FedEx" contains the implied claims of "FedEx exists" and "people go to FedEx", for which the null hypotheses would be "A place doesn't exist until it has been demonstrated to exist", and "People don't go to places until it has been demonstrated that they do", respectively. Since these null hypotheses have already been nullified, the mundane claim of going to FedEx can be considered justified.

  19. #519
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,084
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Rationalize it how you want - I've repeatedly explained my position, pointed out the errors in your arguments with regard to the null hypothesis, as well as the numerous misrepresentations of my statements which you've made, and offered you opportunities to have a valuable discussion which aligns with the clear goal of the thread as I've repeatedly explained it, and which others have readily engaged.
    Rationalization is not relevant.

    In my last post, I've made a series of arguments that counter your arguments and you have not responded to several of them. That is an observable, objective fact.

    You can portray the debate however you want but until those arguments are addressed, they stand.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    No, you've showed that you don't understand the null hypothesis. Your repeated claim that the definition of the null hypothesis must include the same words as a specific example of a null hypothesis proves that, and I've repeatedly explained for you that the null hypothesis isn't a specific hypothesis which contains any specific words, but changes according to the claim to which it applies. Further, your repeated claim that just because the terminology surrounding the null hypothesis is related to statistical science, then the logical principles behind it don't apply to any other claims also demonstrates your lack of understanding, even though I've repeatedly explained that, as well. But here's some more support
    Actually, it's your lack of understanding that's the problem. The null hypothesis does not apply to every kind of claim and if one thinks it does, they are the one who doesn't understand as much as they apparently think they do and are likewise mistaken that they are justified in resorting to condescendingly and rudely telling the other person that they don't understand. Heck, even is one is right, that's not excuse for rudeness.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    1. Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
    "In neither case is the null hypothesis or its alternative proven; the null hypothesis is tested with data and a decision is made based on how likely or unlikely the data are. This is analogous to the legal principle of presumption of innocence, in which a suspect or defendant is assumed to be innocent (null is not rejected) until proven guilty (null is rejected) beyond a reasonable doubt (to a statistically significant degree)."

    The reason it is "analogous to the legal principle of presumption of innocence", is because the logical principles behind both are valid and can apply to any claim.
    So your lack of understanding is revealed here. Yes, I agree that the null hypothesis is analogous to the legal principle of presumption of innocence. But then I'm also aware that the principle of the presumption of innocence, like the null hypothesis, does not apply to every single claim.

    You see, we don't apply the criminal legal standard for any and all claims. We don't even apply the legal criminal standard in all legal claims. If it's a civil suit, the burden is not innocent until proven guilty but based on the preponderance of the evidence.

    The standard for the null hypothesis being successful is apparently pretty high and there is no supported reason that such a standard should be applied to other kinds of claims, especially those that are not being scientifically analyzed.

    So this does not show that the null hypothesis applies to all claims. In fact, it indicates the opposite. It applies to a very specific set of claims.

    And beyond that, the debate is not even about claims, but about beliefs. A belief is a thought that one has in their head and one is not required to claim that their belief is true. So your null hypothesis argument does not seem to apply to beliefs in general.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    2. https://scienceornot.net/2012/12/04/...rden-of-proof/[/B]
    "In science, the default position about any relationship is that it does not exist. This position is called the “null hypothesis“. For a claim to be accepted, the proposer must present sufficient real-world evidence for the null hypothesis to be rejected."
    And that would apply to all scientific claims.

    And it does not necessarily apply to non-scientific claims and definitely does not necessarily apply to beliefs (which are different than claims).

    And please note that is says "accepted" not "rationally justified to believe".

    By scientific standards, my Fed Ex claim completely fails and SHOULD be rejected. And yet I am rationally justified in thinking that I went to Fed Ex a few days ago due to my vivid memory of the experience.

    So either:
    1. The scientific standard/null object is not a good indicator of whether I am justified I'm think I went to Fed Ex
    2. The scientific standard/null hypothesis proves that I am not justified in think that I went to Fed Ex.

    And between the two options, clearly the correct choice is #1.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Here we have a clear explanation of how the default position, which is called the "null hypothesis" applies to claims regardless of their scope, which refutes your rejection.
    The link clearly says "in science", which indicates that it applies to scientific claims. It does not indicate that it applies to non-scientific claims.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    3. https://polyskeptic.com/2009/07/17/b...ll-hypothesis/
    [I]"One of the primary ideas in skepticism is the idea of the null hypothesis. Now, I realize that in every day practical science this ideal is not a reality, but as a rule of scientific inquiry in general it is essential as a part of the philosophy of science. It basically says that you should wait for sufficient evidence before accepting a hypothesis as true. That is, you withhold belief until enough evidence, or at least rational justification, is given to accept something as having a basis in reality.
    Okay. To repeat 'YOU WITHHOLD BELIEF". I completely agree with that. So you don't declare that the person who stated X is not rationally justified in his belief but that, from a scientific perspective, you WITHHOLD BELIEF on whether his claim is true or not. Of course you can personally think the claim is bonkers but scientifically, it's pretty binary. Either the claim has passed the threshold of being scientifically accepted or it has not.

    So if I say "I saw God" as a claim but provide no evidence, you scientifically reject the claim and don't include it as "true" for the scientific model. But you don't jump to the opposite conclusion and say it's a fact that I didn't see God and you certainly don't conclude that I am not rationally justified in believing that I saw God. Scientifically you just don't accept the claim and ignore it until I can provide sufficient evidence that I saw God.

    So again, you are conflating "not accepted" with "not rationally justified in believing". Science says absolutely nothing about whether one is rationally justified in believing an unproven claim.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    "It might seem obvious, but until proven otherwise, the null hypothesis is true. As one classic textbook on statistics nicely puts it: As in a jury trial, the burden of proof rests with the alternative hypothesis; innocent until proven guilty … When you test a hypothesis, you must act as judge and jury, but you are not the prosecutor."
    But failing to prove guilty doesn't mean the person didn't commit the crime - only that the evidence is not sufficient for the court to convict.

    As an example, it's pretty widely accepted, and rightfully so, the OJ Simpson committed murder and the court DID NOT rule that OJ Simpson did not commit murder. It ruled that the evidence to show that he did commit murder was not enough to overcome reasonable doubt. Now, when he was civilly sued and the burden was preponderance of the evidence, he was found guilty and successfully sued. And certainly it cannot be reasonably stated that one is not rationally justified in thinking that OJ did indeed commit murder. Really, if it was the general consensus that he didn't commit murder, we'd be concerned about the actual killer going free.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Yes, the logically valid null hypothesis does render any claim unjustified until justification is provided. But by pointing out the details in your claim (FedEx being demonstrated to exist) and how it differs from supernatural claims, this then renders belief in the FedEx claim rational.
    No, it doesn't. I've provided no evidence that I actually went to Fed Ex. For all you know, I'm lying to you. So by any scientific burden (where mere claims fall short of anything resembling scientific evidence), the null hypothesis says that science cannot accept that I went to Fed Ex.

    But science does not say that because the null hypothesis dictates that the claim must be rejected for scientific purposes, me having the belief that I went is not rationally justified.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Thank you, I will! In this case, it's because I'm tired of repeatedly explaining things to you which are relatively simple, but which you continue to mix up and misrepresent.
    Dude, drop the condescension. I believe that I have shown that your scientific arguments are quite incorrect and since I don't like acting like a condescending jerk, I'm just going to stick to pointing out the flaws in your arguments and not act like you're just too dumb and ignorant to understand my greatly superior knowledge of things scientific.

    Your explanations and assessments are rude and a waste of time. If my arguments are indeed wrong, you can just use a good argument to shoot it down.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I would first ask for an explanation of what you think "life after death" means. But, generally, if it doesn't specifically invoke a deity, then I guess one wouldn't need to call it a theistic belief, but instead maybe a supernatural belief. But I'd say that the same requirements & principles would apply to those beliefs making them not rationally justified until justification is provided. So they could definitely be included in this thread if someone wanted to present such a claim as part of the "If you'd like to discuss a theistic belief which you think has rational justification" challenge.
    Okay. So if one has a friend that died and then they believe that they got a visit from a friend's spirit, then that would qualify as a belief worth examining. And while God isn't directly invoked in that belief, a belief in life after death certainly indicates a belief in the soul.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    No. The null hypothesis means that the default position is a rejection of any claim which has not met its burden of proof. But again, the burden would be proportional to the claim, so every-day mundane claims could be considered justified because the null hypothesis for them has already been nullified. For example: the claim "I went to FedEx" contains the implied claims of "FedEx exists" and "people go to FedEx", for which the null hypotheses would be "A place doesn't exist until it has been demonstrated to exist", and "People don't go to places until it has been demonstrated that they do", respectively. Since these null hypotheses have already been nullified, the mundane claim of going to FedEx can be considered justified.
    Well, guess what? I was lying when I said I went to Fed Ex. I was just forwarding it as a hypothetical claim and I didn't go there on the day that I said I did. So apparently by just taking my word that I went and the knowledge that such a thing could possibly happen (since people do actually go to Fed Ex), you misapplied the null hypothesis (by accepting claims without seeing any evidence that the claim is actually true) and came to the incorrect conclusion.

    Or maybe I wasn't lying. You don't actually know and you have no evidence that I actually went to Fed Ex on the day I said I went. Really, you need to stop telling me that I don't understand this stuff if you are going to commit such errors in applying the null hypothesis.

    But getting back to the main point, we are discussing belief, not claim. In other words, I will not claim that I believe I was visited by a dead friend but just tell you that I have the belief that I did but will in no way try to convince you that I did (for one does not need to convince others of one's belief in order to have that belief). I won't make any claim about my belief at all beyond that I have such a belief. And of course if one is to make another claim about the belief, whatever the claim is, they have the burden of support for their assertion. So if you are going to make a claim regarding my belief, you do have the burden to support that claim. Right?
    Last edited by mican333; August 25th, 2018 at 12:35 PM.

  20. #520
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    This is not necessarily true. It depends how you use the term. You are over generalizing and placing everyone's faith in the same category.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I'll point out that I did clarify the definition right afterwards:
    The full definition - it really goes without saying - should be expressed as "belief in something without sufficient evidence".
    Some other definitions would work as well, since they encompass the same general idea:
    - "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof"
    - "firm belief in something for which there is no proof"
    - "belief that is not based on proof"
    - "strong or unshakable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence"
    Religious faith is the kind of faith we are speaking of, specifically Christian faith in your dicussion with me, and you say it is an unwarranted faith (because in your view the evidence is insufficient), whereas the opposite is true.

    Regardless of your definition, you need faith to trust anything at all, whether or not it is demonstrated or not. The Christian faith is a demonstratable faith. Prophecy is just one means of demonstrating its reasonableness.

    ‘Faith’is a broad term, appearing in locutions that express a range of different concepts. At its most general ‘faith’ means much the same as ‘trust’. This entry is specifically concerned, however, with the notion of religious faith—or, rather (and this qualification is important), the kind of faith exemplified in religious faith.
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/faith/

    I include faith in anything because faith is trust. You would not have faith in something if you did not believe it and trust it.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    It depends on how you're using the term. According to the usage set out in the beginning of the debate, I can say that I personally strive to not have any faith in anything. What you're referring to with "faith" I would instead call "reasonable expectations based on available evidence". When someone says something like "I have faith that, when I flip the light switch, the light will turn on", what they mean in by "faith" that context is not the same as what they mean by "faith" when they talk about their religion. It is an equivocation fallacy.
    Again, you have faith in a myriad of things, you just don't recognize it. Your worldview, whatever you believe, requires faith or you would not believe what you do.

    reasonable expectations based on available evidence
    That is faith! This kind of faith is not blind faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    or no evidence of God.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, sufficient evidence. There may or may not be actual evidence of God (it would depend on how one defines "God", in the first place, as some are logically impossible), but since no sufficient evidence has been presented, then someone is not engaging in faith by not believing in a god.
    There is sufficient evidence, although many do not want to accept it. The reason for this unacceptance, I believe, is that it conflicts their worldview. To believe the Christian worldview they would have to give up their cherished core/foundational beliefs.

    As I said before, atheism qualifies as a religious faith. It has the four to five features that qualify it along these lines. I am documenting it in my reply to your previous post under your comments on atheism (wow - that was a long post).

    the question arises whether faith of that same general kind also belongs to other, non-theistic, religious contexts, or to contexts not usually thought of as religious at all. Arguably, it may be apt to speak of the faith of a humanist, or even an atheist, using the same general sense of ‘faith’ as applies to the theist case.
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/faith/


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    He is blinded by his worldview bias.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Your unsupported opinion it noted.
    To understand worldview bias all you have to do is look at the political gridlock in the USA between Democrats and Republicans. There is an incapacity to listen or believe anything the other side says.

    What is more, everyone has a worldview bias. When they look at any issue, their core foundational beliefs come into play. There is no neutrality (Matthew 6:24; 2 Corinthians 10:3-5; Matthew 7:26-27). I have been in your camp, held your belief syatem to some extent. The NT says it is built on sinking sand. It doesnot have the foundation to support itself and when the winds of despair blow it comes crashing down.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    These are all different usages of the word "faith". Different usages means that the reasoning behind them is or isn't valid for completely different reasons. Nothing about the word being used in different ways makes one usage rational just because another one is. Again, this is an equivocation fallacy.

    For any usages which don't comport with the definitions I've set out above, the term for this debate will be "reasonable expectation based on available evidence", unless a more fitting term is deemed necessary.
    Faith is a belief and trust (and knowledge, whether true or false). We all hold to a faith of some sort, and in worldviews, most misapply faith, for not everything is true.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    For the purposes of this debate, the former (with sufficient evidence) should be referred to as "reasonable expectation based on available evidence", not faith - the latter (without sufficient evidence) is "faith".
    You are trying to cherry pick the definition, but as I said earlier on this post and provided Stanford's quotation, generally, faith is a belief and trust in something. A sane person would not have a belief in something unless they trusted that it was true, and that faith would be thought of as a reasonable faith based on the evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, atheism is a single response to a single claim, nothing more. Simply put, all an atheist is, is someone who has not been convinced of theistic claims such as "deity X exists", and therefore does not believe that deity X exists. When discussing worldviews, there are a number of different and conflicting worldviews which atheists could hold to, and there are indeed atheists who hold to different views about the world & reality (methodological naturalism, philosophical naturalism, solipsim, humanism, nihilism, abiogenesis, panspermia, the list goes on and on). There is nothing about atheism (meaning the non-belief in a deity) which necessitates any one of these worldviews, and therefore, atheism itself is not a worldview.
    No, atheism is involved in the denial of God, whether that be for supposedly insufficient evidence, or no supposed evidence at all, atheist is a system of belief. It must build on its core belief in denial of the supernature. If you see insufficient evidence in the supernatural you will look for the answer in the natural. Atheists seek to understand the world without looking to the supernatural, but through secular and materialistic or mechanistic means. It excludes the supernatural. It explains the world, the universe, outside of the supernatural, within its own little box. The universe is that box, or as J.Warner Wallace puts it, "it stays in the room":

    “Can the evidence ‘in the room’ be explained by staying ‘in the room’? This question is key to determining whether a death scene is a crime scene, and I typically play a game I call “inside or outside the room” whenever I am trying to determine if a death is, in fact, a murder. If, for example, there is a victim in the room with a gunshot injury lying next to a handgun, but the doors are locked from the inside, all the DNA and fingerprints in the room come back to the victim, the gun is registered to the victim and there are no signs of an outside intruder, this is simply the scene of a suicide or accidental death. If, however, there exist fingerprints or DNA of an unknown suspect, the gun does not belong to the victim, and there are even bloody footprints leading outside the room, I’ve got to reconsider the cause of this death. When the evidence in the room cannot be explained by staying inside the room and is better explained by a cause outside the room, there’s a good chance I’ve got a murder. When this is the case, my investigation must shift direction. I must now begin to search for an external intruder. I think you’ll find this investigative approach applicable as you examine the case for God’s existence. If all the evidence “inside the room” of the universe can be explained by staying “inside the room”, there’s no need to invoke an ‘external’ cause. If, on the other hand, the best explanation for the evidence “inside the room” is a cause “outside the room”, we’ll need to shift our attention as we search for an “external” intruder.
    http://coldcasechristianity.com/2015...-the-universe/

    Peter

 

 
Page 26 of 28 FirstFirst ... 16 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Philosophy: Does a necessary beng exist, and is it consistent with the theistic God?
    By cstamford in forum Member Articles & Essays
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: October 15th, 2015, 06:02 AM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: April 25th, 2015, 09:37 AM
  3. The Theistic Definition Thread
    By Meng Bomin in forum Religion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 26th, 2007, 02:13 PM
  4. Theistic Evolution????
    By nanderson in forum Religion
    Replies: 152
    Last Post: April 13th, 2006, 06:53 AM
  5. Theistic Death
    By Iluvatar in forum Religion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2005, 08:01 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •