Re: Did you "Choose to Believe," or "Choose not to believe"?

In article
<1ccdb52a-b52d-44f3-a890-e21a5366bf6c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 <cazayoux@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On May 13, 1:44 pm, magi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Arturo Magidin) wrote:
>
>>
>> Isn't one of the attributes of "god" supposed to be omnipresence and
>> another detectability? If so, there is evidence there is no such
>> thing.
>>
>
>omnipresence and detectability... hmmm
>if you define that detectibility is required, then you define how to
>measure this as well.

I am told that this "god" thing interacts with the world in visible
ways. That makes it detectable, without having to establish "how" one
measures it.

If "god" is not detectable, that means that there is no measurable
effect of "god" on the observable universe; no way to distinguish the
alleged "god" from... nothing. Is that the premise that most people
talking about "god" have? In my experience, no. They talk about how
one can "feel the presence", how one can "see miracles", etc. 

>I don't have detectibility as a measure for my faith, so this isn't
>one of the attributes I'd try to measure.

That's not the point, though. I wasn't saying your faith requires you
to be able to measure or to attempt to measure.  I was replying to the
proposition that "there is no evidence to sup****t that there is no
god."

If "god" is supposed to have observable interactions with the world as
we know it, and no such interactions are observed, then this
constitutes "evidence to sup****t that there is no god". I'm not saying
you must observe it to believe in "god", I'm addressing the assertion
(which you removed, thus depriving my statement of needed context)
that there is no evidence to sup****t the proposition that there is no
"god".

>It would be a strawman for you to define me,

I'm not defining ->you<-. I'm addressing the assertion that there is
no evidence to sup****t the proposition that there is no "god".

> then prove by your
>definition that I'm wrong.
>This would only be a supposition for you.

Huh?

>> The absence of intervention also provides (weak) evidence in favor of
>> the proposition that no such thing exists, just as the lack of
>> blood-spatter evidence provides evidence that no murder was committed
>> in your house while you were out this morning.
>
>In science we say that a theory can never be proven, only disproven.

I know. And yet, we consider evidence in favor of a theory; namely, if
attempts to disprove FAIL, then this is considered evidence IN SUP****T
of the theory. 

That's ->precisely<- my point.

>When a stated theory is disproved, it might lead to a new theory or a
>more defined theory.
>Absence of proof is not, in science, proof of the negative.

I know. I even said so. However, it is EVIDENCE IN FAVOR of the
negative, when properly conducted. 

You did not say there was "no proof" that there is no god. You said
there was NO EVIDENCE TO SUP****T, and that is simply false.

>It is still just an unproven theory.
>
>From your example, the proof is not there there was no murder in my
>house this morning.
>The proof is only that there was no blood splatter.

Did you bother reading what I wrote? I never said "proof". I said
EVIDENCE. The absence of blood spatter is EVIDENCE that no murder was
committed. Not ->dispositive<- evidence, of course; I even said so
myself. But it ->does<- constitute ->EVIDENCE<- in favor of that
proposition.

>Someone could be murdered in a number of ways that don't involve blood
>splatter.
>And even if the murder involved blood splatter, there could be a
>number of ways not to have blood splatter on the wall.

Given the incredible speed with which you decided to invoke an alleged
strawman, perhaps you might try not to engage in them yourself. I
never said "proof"; perhaps you can try addressing what I wrote
instead of whatever it is you imagined I wrote next time. 

-- 
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
 what I accept as reality."
    --- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes" by Bill Watterson)
======================================================================

Arturo Magidin
magidin-at-member-ams-org