Seriously, Dawkins?

[Kai]

I already figured out your problem, there's nothing more to say. You're an apologist. You think it's perfectly find to privileged a hypothesis without any evidence. And you're upset with people you deem to be authority figures saying just the opposite.

Your psychological anguish and self-deception aren't my problem. This conversation is over. Good day.

Which hypothesis did i privilege when i said I do not know whether God exists or not?

Which hypothesis did i privilege when i said it is unprovable either way so you shouldnt claim to know?

And right there, you just begged the question.

But I already said I was done talking with you.

[Pope Lecherous]

Let me try once more. Blackfoot seems to be saying that there could be some as-yet undiscovered aspect of the Universe that, if accepted and understood, could fundamentally change our entire understanding of the Universe ("an unknown big-t Truth").

There very well could be.  As our understanding of the world around us increases it leads to more interesting questions which may be explored.  

So: if our anticipation of reality is accurate without a God factor, then we do not need to keep him in our model, or even the POSSIBILITY of a God in our model, just as we do not keep the possibility of invisible space weasels infesting Saturn.

Which allows us to say that God does not exist, in the same way we are allowed to say invisible space weasels from Saturn do not exist.

The moment our anticipation of reality proves inaccurate without the inclusion of an invisible space weasel, we will have to add that question mark, but never a moment sooner.

Your model is works brilliantly.  The only limitation of these models is that you apply them to a scenario.  A singular model does not encompass life and everything.  So your model works when you say f=ma and that equation has nothing to do with God.  That is knowledge gained about the scenario, a fact.  A truth about reality.  The possibility of God has nothing to do with scenario x.  

Thus, you can claim space weasels are the cause of x phenomenon.   I say I highly doubt that.  But no hypothesis need be privileged when said phenomenon is investigated.  Weasels needn't be included in the investigation whatsoever, nor does any dubious theory.  Essentially, by saying i do not know, the question is ignored until it introduces itself as a factor.  Until it makes itself a hypothesis that needs to be examined by virtue of evidence.  Real evidence.  Do you see what i'm driving at?

A mysterious force called Gravity and the idea of an earth that was round was once as ridiculous to the common man Space weasels.  Yet science has shown that it is the case.  Should we investigate space weasels?  Existing evidence says no.

[Pope Lecherous]

Which hypothesis did i privilege when i said I do not know whether God exists or not?

Which hypothesis did i privilege when i said it is unprovable either way so you shouldnt claim to know?

And right there, you just begged the question.

But I already said I was done talking with you.

That's fine.  You are not obligated to reply to anything you dont want to.  If you want to make claims and i challenge your claim you don't have to do or say anything to back it up.  You arent obligated to do anything at all.

I havent privileged any hypothesis.  When i examine a question, a hypothesis will compete with others to determine it's precedence in consideration based on existing knowledge  a.k.a. facts a.k.a. truth.  So be it god or space weasels, they don't enter the equation until evidence raises them to the level of serious consideration.

ETA: Nor do i privilege any hypothesis when i say i do not know if god exists or not.

[Jasper]

When I first heart that Bohr quote, I was mindblown.  It has the virtue of expanding your thoughts, at least it did for me, but it doesn't really have a rational/definite meaning.

I know, I was too. I nodded my head sagely like everyone else. But after further consideration I realized it's another one of those statements that just stir aquiecense in the listeners. Sorta like "everything is connected to everything else". Sorta a deep wisdom fallacy or something. http://lesswrong.com/lw/k8/how_to_seem_and_be_deep/

I know I reference Yudowsky a whole bunch, but why not? He's the only philosopher today that has their thoughts in line.

I'm on the other end of a >10 year philosophy kick, and it's a pretty dead subject to me by and large, except where it has meaningful applications.  I've lost almost all interest in ethics (not morals, there is a difference), and I've lost all interest in metaphysics, again, except where they lead to meaningful observational results.  

I guess what I'm saying is that having grown up loving philosophy and taking tons of philosophy courses, I've had everything but rational empiricism beaten out of me.

Aren't ethics more concerned with actual behavior?

That's morality.  Ethics is moral philosophy.

When I first heart that Bohr quote, I was mindblown.  It has the virtue of expanding your thoughts, at least it did for me, but it doesn't really have a rational/definite meaning.

Godel Escher Bach actually explores this idea of truths of which the contradiction is also true.  In a rational way.

It's been a long time since I read it, but I remember it being a lot more than just fluffy stuff.

I own that, and some MIT lectures on it, and I have tried time and again to read that book, but I just can't seem to crack it.

[Telarus]

Gah, I'm buried in this lighting project at the moment (UDK). I'm going to have to bow out until I can reorganize and get other sources for what I have to say. Apologies Kai.

[Slyph]

I already figured out your problem, there's nothing more to say. You're an apologist. You think it's perfectly find to privileged a hypothesis without any evidence. And you're upset with people you deem to be authority figures saying just the opposite.

Your psychological anguish and self-deception aren't my problem. This conversation is over. Good day.

Which hypothesis did i privilege when i said I do not know whether God exists or not?

Which hypothesis did i privilege when i said it is unprovable either way so you shouldnt claim to know?

You're holding the idea of God as innately more worthy of reserved judgement compared to say, Russel's Teapot.

[LMNO]

What Sylph said. The reason we're making stupid shit up like dragons, sentient teapots, and invisible space weasels is because they have the EXACT same probability of existing as God. The hypothesis you're privileging is the God concept over the Space Weasel concept. You have no evidence elevating God over Space Weasels, so they should have the same potential truth value, i.e. negligible.

[Pope Lecherous]

What Sylph said. The reason we're making stupid shit up like dragons, sentient teapots, and invisible space weasels is because they have the EXACT same probability of existing as God. The hypothesis you're privileging is the God concept over the Space Weasel concept. You have no evidence elevating God over Space Weasels, so they should have the same potential truth value, i.e. negligible.

So i guess you want me to say that these creatures do not exist.  It is ridiculous to believe these things exist and far more appropriate to believe that they don't.  I ask this;  Is it better to operate under the assumption that these things do not exist or not consider their existence one way or the other?

[Thurnez Isa]

How did this thread go from Dawkin's nearsighted bigoted poor world view to making me sorry for the shit that he has to go through?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I can honestly say I have absolutely no idea whether space weasels exist or not. But I do have a few questions about how we're defining "space weasels".

[Cain]

Space Weasels are closely related to the rarely seen, but vicious Ice Weasel:

Love is a snowmobile
racing across the tundra
and then
suddenly it flips over
pinning you underneath.
At night
the ice weasels come

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Space Weasels are closely related to the rarely seen, but vicious Ice Weasel:

Love is a snowmobile
racing across the tundra
and then
suddenly it flips over
pinning you underneath.
At night
the ice weasels come

[Jenne]

Space Weasels are closely related to the rarely seen, but vicious Ice Weasel:

Love is a snowmobile
racing across the tundra
and then
suddenly it flips over
pinning you underneath.
At night
the ice weasels come

[Luna]

Love is a snowmobile
racing across the tundra
and then
suddenly it flips over
pinning you underneath.
At night
the ice weasels come

Brilliant.

[LMNO]

Thead over. Cain wins.