----------INTRODUCTION----------
Based on the logical law of excluded middle there is a proposition and its negation. So a proposition is either (X) or (-X). For example:
(X) There is an apple on my desk.
--OR--
(-X) There is NO apple on my desk.
Logicians use symbols to exempt bias, so that is why I am and will be using symbols in these explanations.
When it comes to believing proposition (X) or (-X) as true or more likely true over its negation, there will always be a REASON why a person believes one proposition over its opposite (whether knowingly or not). All REASONS will be based on the content the proposition contains; that is, all except one REASON.
The one REASON a person can have for believing proposition (X) over (-X) --or vice versa-- (despite what its content is) is by blindly guessing/picking one at random and then deciding to try and make oneself believe it. This reason for believing a proposition over its negation/opposite is universally held as being an irrational reason; that means one would not be rationally justified to believe a certain proposition over its negation/opposite for that reason.
All other reasons one would come to believe (X) over (-X) --or vice versa-- have to based on the content of the proposition; we then look to see if the reason based on that content is rationally justified and also which proposition has more/better rationally justified reasons for belief.
I will give a list of a few possible propositions and their negations/opposites (so as to do add some possible content to these symbols):
(X) The stars in the universe are even in number.
(-X) The stars in the universe are uneven in number.
(X) The universe is Symmetrical in shape.
(-X) The universe is Asymmetrical in shape.
(X) There is a car on Jupiter.
(-X) There is no car on Jupiter.
(X) Dave will win the lottery this weekend.
(-X) Dave will not win the lottery this weekend.
(X) There is only one star in the universe.
(-X) There is not only one star in the universe.
If someone is void of rational reasons (whether knowingly or not) for believing either proposition is more likely true than its opposite, that same person is rationally obligated to hold to a 50/50 agnosticism between both competing propositions (on which is more likely true); however, this is not to say one can not believe a proposition as true for non-inferential reasons, but the circumstances in which that non-inferential belief is held have to be based on the rational deliverances of reason (and this will depend on which epistemic model one holds to).
If someone claims one proposition is more likely true than its opposite they are making a positive knowledge statement and have a burden of proof to show this to be the case.
I will now move on to three ways in which reasoning can be shown to rationally support a proposition over its competing opposite...
----------FIRST WAY: Direct Inferential/non-Inferential evidence/reason----------
The first way a proposition can be shown to have a rational reason for belief over its opposite, is by giving direct inferential (or non-inferential) evidence/argumentation.
So between these two competing and opposite propositions below...
(X) Dave murdered Sally.
(-X) Dave did not murder Sally.
...an example of a direct piece of inferential evidence would be something like: I believe proposition (X) is more likely true than proposition (-X) because Dave was found in possession of the murder weapon.
Between these two competing and opposite propositions below...
(X) The sun exists (a big bright light above the earth).
(-X) The sun does not exist (a big bright light above the earth).
...an example of a direct non-inferential reason would be something like: I believe proposition (X) is more likely true than proposition (-X) because I see the sun in the sky. This is a non-inferential reason grounded directly in experience (depending on ones epistemology, this will dictate which non-inferential beliefs are rationally valid, and therefore, which non-inferential beliefs can/could be used to directly show/support a proposition as more likely true over its competing opposite).
----------SECOND WAY: Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence----------
The second way a proposition can be shown to have a rational reason for belief over its opposite proposition (which is normally used falsely, but I will get to that), is by claiming there is no evidence for the opposite proposition and that leads to evidence of absence.
For example, someone could say something like:
"I believe (-X) is more likely true because there is no evidence for (X)."
But the problem is that it is no good to just say there is no evidence for (X), as that is no evidence for (-X) to be more likely true (the same argument could be made but in the reverse order: "I believe (X) is more likely true because there is no evidence for (-X)").
The absence of evidence is NOT NECESSARILY evidence of absence. The only time the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, is if we should expect to have more evidence for (X) --or vice versa-- than what we do have; therefore the absence of evidence in this case would be evidence of absence.
Take these two propositions below for example...
(X) The stars in the universe are even in number.
(-X) The stars in the universe are uneven in number.
...now the absence of evidence for proposition (X) being true is no evidence that it is more likely false (and that proposition (-X) is more likely true). That is because there is no expected evidence for (X) that we should have --if (X) were true-- which we do not have.
Now for example, take these two propositions below...
(X) There is a planet the size of Texas between the earth and the moon.
(-X) There is no planet the size of Texas between the earth and the moon.
...this time the absence of evidence for (X) is evidence of absence (and thus evidence for proposition (-X) being more likely true). If (X) were true we would expect to find evidence of people being able to see it, NASA/news outlets informing us of it and that it would cause certain effects on nature (like the tide to change) etc... all of which we do not find.
So if one wanted to support a proposition over its opposite with the reason of lack of evidence leading to evidence of absence, one has to state what evidence we would expect to find if proposition (X) --or vice versa-- were true and then show that we do not find that evidence.
----------THIRD WAY: Circumstantial chance----------
The third way a proposition can be shown to have a rational reason for belief over its opposite, is via the chance of such a proposition being true based on certain background data.
In this case, the proposition is not looked at specifically, but assessed based on generality. I will explain fully what I mean.
For example, look at these two propositions below...
(X) There is a tea pot on the backside of Mars.
(-X) There is no tea pot on the backside of Mars.
...now most people intuitively believe it is more rational to hold proposition (-X) as more likely true than proposition (X). Why is this though?
Well, let us look at the first way: there is no direct evidence/reason for (-X) being more likely true than (X). How about the second way: there is no absence of evidence for (X) leading to evidence of absence (there is no expected evidence we should find if (X) were true which we do not find). So that leaves us with this third way: circumstantial chance/probability.
Basically, we have a series of background beliefs/data/information about reality which inform us that the contingent possibility of (X) happening to be true by chance is far less likely than (-X) happening to be true by chance (there is no direct evidence proving one way or the other, and there is no expected evidence which we are missing; however given certain background beliefs --if these background beliefs are true-- they inform us that the probability of (X) happening to be true by chance is far more likely than (-X) happening to be true by chance).
This way we are not assessing the content specifically but rather assessing it by a generality. For example, look at these two propositions below:
(X) The car on this authors drive way has fuel in the tank.
(-X) The car on this authors drive way has no fuel in the tank.
Now, most people reading this probably don't know me personally and therefore have no idea (directly) about the nature of the case. However, most people reading this know that generally most people's cars have fuel in the tank when they are sat on their drive ways; therefore taking this general case (background data) one can/could apply it to my specific case and have a rational reason for believing (X) is less likely true than (-X).
So, to show (X) --or vice versa-- to be more likely true than its opposite via this third way, one has to state the background information we have (if true) which would inform us that the contingent possibility of (X) happening to be true by chance is far less likely than (-X) happening to be true by chance.
----------SUMMARY OF THE THREE WAYS----------
Firstly, if you are going to say a proposition is more likely true than its opposite you are making a positive knowledge statement and have a burden of proof.
Secondly, to show a proposition to be more likely than its opposite you have to:
(1) Show direct evidence for proposition (X) being more likely true than (-X).
(2) Show that we would have more evidence for (-X) than we currently have if (-X) were true; thus the absence of evidence for (-X) is evidence for (X) being more likely true.
(3) Show based on certain background information/data/beliefs (X) is more likely to happen to be true by chance than (-X) happening to be true by chance.
----------ASSESSING THE PROPOSITION 'GOD EXISTS' OVER ITS OPPOSITE----------
-----FIRST EXAMPLE-----
Classical Theism is a belief in God, yes, but more specifically it is a belief about the nature of Ultimate Reality. It is the belief that Ultimate Reality is Personal (not to be confused with 'Relational') in nature, rather than Ultimate Reality being Impersonal in nature (i.e. atheism - as this is the antithesis to Theism).
I am going to post a link on a debate which was based on these two propositions below...
(X) God exists (i.e. Ultimate Reality is Personal).
(-X) God does not exist (i.e. Ultimate Reality is Impersonal).
...I will post the link at the end, after I state some issues concerning the debate.
The debate was between Christian Theist philosopher Dr William Craig (supporting (X) ) VS the late infamous anti-theist Christopher Hitchens (supporting (-X) ).
In the debate Craig gave four inferential arguments/reasons to support proposition (X) --mostly via deductive syllogisms-- and one non-inferential argument/reason to support proposition (X).
Hitchens on the other hand gave no inferential arguments to support proposition (-X), rather he made a lot of rhetorical jabs; like religion is the cause of lots of evil acts through out history etc... If Hitchens wanted to turn these rhetorical jabs into actual arguments/reasons to support proposition (-X) over (X), he would of had to add some minor premises to the major premises to allow for the rational conclusion of 'therefore, (-X) is true;' but Hitchens did not do this. Also, Hitchens did not attempt any serious rebuttals of Dr Craig's arguments for (X) being true.
Here is a short video highlighting some of the issues of the debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0qQoJjsBWs
Here is a link to the full debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tYm41hb48o
Of this debate, Commonsenseatheism..com stated: "Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child..."
-----SIDE NOTE (Beginning)-----
I have a reason for why I emphasize belief in God being recognized as a belief about the nature of Ultimate Reality. The reason is misconception.
A lot of people think of God as being like some kind of super hero (Superman for example): that God is just some being who exists within reality, being subject/subservient to reality and just a part of it; yet with incredible powers and abilities.
The problem with this belief is that when people think about the probability of the proposition 'God exists' they sub-consciously see it as less likely than 50/50 (even if they have no reasons based on the first and second way) because of the third way.
For example, the chance of someone making up the story of superman and a being contingently just happening to exist which has all the properties of superman, seems very unlikely (given all the possible contingent possibilities of reality - so the third way makes the proposition 'Superman exists' less likely).
This is sub-consciously how people think of the proposition 'God exists' I believe, however, when it is framed in its proper context (being about the nature of Ultimate Reality) people realize that the third way can not be applied in this case (there is no possible background information which can be applied to the very nature of Ultimate Reality happening to be a s certain way by chance).
-----SIDE NOTE (Ending)-----
-----SECOND EXAMPLE-----
In this second exchange (link below) Dr Craig is debating Dr Shook. The debate is based on these two competing propositions below:
(X) The natural world is all that exists (i.e. Naturalism).
VS
(-X) The natural world is not all that exists (i.e. Super-naturalism).
However, in this exchange Dr John Shook seems to be arguing a straw-man. He seems to approach the debate as if the two competing propositions are:
(S) The natural world exists.
VS
(-S) The natural and supernatural world exist.
To prove (X) is more likely true Dr Shook has to show evidence/argument/reason for this based on what we know from reality. It is no good to just show evidence the natural world exists (the straw-man argument -- since both sides believe the natural world exists), rather he has to show some evidence/argument/reason from the natural world (or via some other means) which shows it is more likely to be the only thing which exists in reality.
Now, for either proposition (X) or (-X) to be rationally shown as more likely true than its equal and opposite proposition, requires reasoning based on what we know about reality. Let me give a similar scenario to demonstrate this:
(A) There are no more than 230,000 species of fish in the sea (230,000 is the most recent estimate to date I believe for the amount of differing fish species we have found).
VS
(-A) There are more than 230,000 species of fish in the sea.
Now if some one wants to rationally show one proposition is more likely true than the its opposite, it has to be based on reasoned argument from what we know.
For example somebody could make an argument for (-A) like: "Well, there is so much more ocean yet to discover which we have not been able to access so far, and based on what we know of life, if it can exist anywhere it will exist; therefore it is more likely there are more types of fish species in the sea yet to discover."
An example argument for (A) could be something like:
"Well, all the sea left to discover which we have not accessed yet is under too much pressure for a fish to survive based on what we know via fish biology; therefore it is less likely there are anymore types of fish in the sea."
The bottom line is this, if you want to show a claim as more likely true than its opposite you need a reasoned argument for that based on what we know via reality.
Here is a short video highlighting the issues in the debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcnZRctcleM
Here is a link to the full debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRp3ERk8Tho
----------RELATED LINKS----------
RELATED LINKS BELOW:
>>>Is there Good Evidence for Atheism?<<<
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5T76Rp6pS4I
>>>God Is Not Merely Interested In Getting People to Believe In Him<<<
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1iWk3KYhGA
>>>The Presumption of Atheism<<<
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGG5uuNW8q0
Attachments
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Bullshit! Word salad. Nothing worth the fucking time I spent on it.
"obligated to hold to a 50/50 agnosticism between both competing propositions "
I think he may be confused about what agnosticism means as well. It always surprises me when people imply it's a sort of half way 50/50 position, accepting a premise is as likely true as it is false, that's not remotely what agnosticism means. It means nothing is known or can be known about the nature or existence of something. In religious context that would be god, but I'd say this was true of any unfalsifiable claim.
After all that bullshit all the word salad, you still haven't proven a god, not even close.
Between these two competing propositions below...
(X) Ultimate Reality is Personal in nature.
(-X) Ultimate Reality is Impersonal in nature.
...do you believe either proposition above is more likely than its opposite to be true?
@Mykob4
I think the above rant is what lawyers would call a series of loaded questions.
@The Interlocutor
I'm not a scholar. As against your bibles, testaments, scrolls, parchments and many, many publications and arguments, I don't have a book. I don't even have a page. All I have are two words - Honesty and Logic. And I will tell you something that you don't want to know. The One True God, the one 'who was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be' is called Logic.
Based on the LOGICAL LAW OF EXCLUDED MIDDLE (since you seem venerate logic highly) there is only a proposition and its opposite; so there is (X) and (-X).
Between these two competing propositions below...
(X) Ultimate Reality is Personal in nature.
(-X) Ultimate Reality is Impersonal in nature.
...do you believe either proposition above is more likely than its opposite to be true?
A - What is "Ultimate Reality"? You need to define that.
B- After we know what you're talking about, you need to demonstrate that "Ultimate Reality" exists in the first place.
"A - What is "Ultimate Reality"? You need to define that.
B- After we know what you're talking about, you need to demonstrate that "Ultimate Reality" exists in the first place."
You took the words out of my mouth, is "ultimate reality" supposedly different to plain old reality?
You said:
//
A - What is "Ultimate Reality"? You need to define that.
B- After we know what you're talking about, you need to demonstrate that "Ultimate Reality" exists in the first place.
//
Answer to (A): Ultimate Reality is the fundamental nature of Reality. For example, for some the universe is not just a part of reality but it is the fundamental nature of reality; that is to say there is nothing more which exists outside of the universe, and everything which exists supervenes upon it and exists within it. Ultimate Reality is 101 study in philosophy class on issues of ontology and metaphysics etc...
ANSWER to (B): I don't need to demonstrate it unless you are claiming reality does not exit. if reality exists then there is a fundamental nature to it.
Now, between these two competing propositions below...
(X) Ultimate Reality is Personal in nature.
(-X) Ultimate Reality is Impersonal in nature.
...do you believe either proposition above is more likely than its opposite to be true?
So, "Ultimate Reality" is just another term for "reality"?
No my friend. Now what I am about to say can have some nuances to it (because of issues like solipsism etc..) but I am going to give a simple and brief explanation.
Reality is a plain of existence which exists independent of our minds. However, many objects which exist in reality are contingent, exist within a wider reality and supervene on a part of reality which is fundamental to it.
This (wider and) fundamental part of reality (the most fundamental part, the part in which all other parts supervene and exist within) is the part we call Ultimate Reality.
Now that I have answered your question multiple times, could you please answer my question: between these two competing propositions below...
(X) Ultimate Reality is Personal in nature.
(-X) Ultimate Reality is Impersonal in nature.
...do you believe either proposition above is more likely than its opposite to be true?
No my friend. Now what I am about to say can have some nuances to it (because of issues like solipsism etc..) but I am going to give a simple and brief explanation.
Reality is a plain of existence which exists independent of our minds. However, many objects which exist in reality are contingent, exist within a wider reality and supervene on a part of reality which is fundamental to it.
This (wider and) fundamental part of reality (the most fundamental part, the part in which all other parts supervene and exist within) is the part we call Ultimate Reality.
Now that I have answered your question multiple times, could you please answer my question: between these two competing propositions below...
(X) Ultimate Reality is Personal in nature.
(-X) Ultimate Reality is Impersonal in nature.
...do you believe either proposition above is more likely than its opposite to be true?
I don't see where something being contingent makes it part of a "bigger" reality. It's just something in reality that requires something else, which by default would also be part of reality.
I don't see where this would make the need for a higher reality.
If I'm not getting it, how about instead of giving definitions give me some actual examples. Like, 'reality exists independent of our minds', that could be say the computer I'm on right now, no? This computer will exist even if I, or every human being, just disappeared. Is that right? What would examples of the rest of the statements you made?
You say:
"I don't see where something being contingent makes it part of a "bigger" reality. It's just something in reality that requires something else, which by default would also be part of reality."
Firstly, contingent means it is not necessary. For example my cars existence is contingent (it did not have to exist), however, the laws of logic are metaphysically necessary (in modal logic there is no possible world ['possible world' means set of affairs] in which logical law does not exist), they are not contingent; this means the laws of logic are ontically grounded in Ultimate Reality (whatever that reality is).
Secondly, the term 'Reality' can be used as a reference about anything which exists. 'Ultimate Reality' is distinct in that it is talking about the fundamental nature of that existence itself; the very ground of existence (as philosophers would say).
So 'Ultimate Reality' is describing specifically the aspect of Reality (though distinct from Reality in general) which is:
(1) Metaphysically necessary (like the part which grounds logic and mathematical truths ect...).
(2) The part of Reality in which all other parts are not separate to (so for example, a hammer is separate to a screwdriver, but both are not separate to space; so Ultimate Reality is the most fundamental part of Reality in which all other parts are not separate to it).
(3) The part of reality all other parts supervene from.
Thirdly, let me give you an example of how atheists (by this I mean people who positively believe God does not exist) probably think of the situation (whether knowingly or not):
P1: The universe is Ultimate Reality.
P2: The universe is Impersonal in nature (rather than Personal in nature).
Conclusion: Therefore Ultimate Reality is Impersonal (i.e. God does not exist - atheism).
I hope this helps :)
Fourthly, If you noticed in this article I talk about how a proposition always has to have a reason for belief one way or the other (even if that reason is just a blind assumption), and then how we can check to see if that reason is rationally valid. I then stated that the belief can be inferential (so we can check the reason using the straight forward rules of rational inference) or non-inferential (I stated for this position the assessment is made for rational justification depending on ones epistemic model; normally that will asses the circumstance in which the non-inferential belief arises - like in an experience for example).
Well, I am going to write an article soon on how one could have belief in God without inferential argument and still be rationally justified for that belief (the second issue of rational justification would be based on internal justification; however, this is a debate in epistemology between Internalists and Externalists). So keep your eyes peeled for that one :D
Fifthly, now that I wrote all this out for you, could please answer my initial question?
"Answer to (A): Ultimate Reality is the fundamental nature of Reality. "
So no real difference then, just a vague arbitrary term you've made up to allow you to use special pleading as an argument for some of your bizarre claims.
@ Interlocutor
You're wasting your time.
Interlocutor
I read about a quarter of it, then I scroll to see how long it was, so all I can say is TLDR. What I did read was a bunch of circular reasoning. You didn't prove a god is real. What proof do you have that a god is real? Please give something that is testable, and can pass peer review. Then you can collect your Nobel.
What kind of a twat would give himself a preposterous name like 'Interlocutor', anyway?
That is your opinion and it is entirely subjective, just like your religion.
It is clear you have no concept of what you are talking about with the proposition "Is there good evidence for atheism" as atheism is about lack of evidence, not good evidence.
ANSWERING ALL THE SILLY OBJECTIONS IN ONE GO (I am limited on time)...
Statement:
// [agnosticism means] ...means nothing is known or can be known about the nature or existence of something. //
No, that is one type of agnosticism; sometimes called hard agnosticism. Hard agnosticism holds not only does one not know if a proposition is true, but it also adds the positive epistemic claim that one can not know a certain proposition to be true.
Statement:
// I think the above rant is what lawyers would call a series of loaded questions. //
I don't think you know what a loaded question is; nothing I said is based on loaded questions (and if it is, then all questions are loaded). I laid out my claims point by point, that has nothing to do with loaded questions; also my claims are based on the logical laws and what I am saying is not controversial at all, it is basic epistemology.
The traditional example of a loaded the question is: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he will admit to having a wife and having beaten her at some time in the past.
Statement:
// That is your opinion and it is entirely subjective, just like your religion. //
It is my opinion that the logical law of excluded middle means we can only have a proposition and its opposite: that a proposition is either (X) or (-X)? It is clear my friend you do not know what you are talking about (though you lay that charge at my feet).
So according to your points...
The Bible is entirely true
The Bible is entirely false
So if one aspect of the Bible gets disproved then it automatically in its entirety is false?
Just trying to understand your logic
My friend, that is not how the logical law of excluded middle works. That position you are espousing is...
(A) The Bible is entirely true.
(B) The Bible is entirely false.
...called a false dilemma, since there could be a (C) or (D) option etc...
So the (C) option could be:
(C) The Bible is partially true.
The logical law of excluded middle is based on a proposition and its negation/opposite (I can see how the term 'opposite' has misled you here); so (A) or (-A).
Let me give you an example:
(A) The Bible is entirely true.
(-A) The Bible is not entirely true.
@burn your bible. I'm usually on your side, but what you presented was a false dichotomy.
X: the bible is entirely true
-X: the bible is not entirely true.
When you say: the bible is entirely false that is a different positive claim. It is not the opposite of X and there is no excluded middle. A dichotomy is both all inclusive AND mutually exclusive. (I'll send you links if you want)
I agree that the interlocutor is trying to define god into existence or to snare you in a battle you cannot win by picking one of his propositions over the other or to say that he's right, you cannot justify one over the other, but he is right about his wording and the law of the excluded middle. I would instead reject his propositions based on the lack of clarity.
So what, I say. I don't know. More importantly: I don't care. Bring the logic home. X:god exists or -X: god does not exist. Based on way number two and way number three most of us would have to determine that -X is more likely true. Why? We should expect much more evidence of god than we actually have. And because the opposite claim more closely aligns with the reality that we actually experience.
When someone starts using adjectives with the world reality; walk away. When they start capitalizing them; run.
My friend, that is a pointless comment. Do you actually have anything of substance to say about the OP?
I was giving credit where credit was due. Do you not accept?
On the OP: you're right, the only stance I can have on whether X is true or not X is true is that I don't know. But what does that matter? Ultimate reality, whether personal or impersonal. It's philosophical rhetoric. It proves one thing: that we have no way of determining which is true. Those who claim to know are irrational.
But I tend stick to unequivocal terms so that my interlocutors and I are not playing words games that ultimately get us no closer to any truth.
Thanks, I guess :)
You said:
"we have no way of determining which is true."
That is a positive epistemic claim, can you prove that?
You say: "I was giving credit where credit was due. Do you not accept?"
I wondered why you said that, then check the posts
I assume you thought this comment was aimed at you:
"My friend, that is a pointless comment. Do you actually have anything of substance to say about the OP?"
If so, it was not :)
I did assume that. Mine appeared as #24.
As per the epistemic claim... It is general. In the case that you define terms in ways other than what another person does or in ways that could be interpreted in several different ways (even after your definition) then how does one determine either way? In this instance it is term 'personal' and 'impersonal' that hold different connotations. Reality and all its constituent parts as ultimate reality including the laws of mathematics and logic as ultimate reality is fine.
The point. I would use, in any logical sylligism, the simplest, most specific terms possible and ensure that your 'opponents' understand and agree with your definitions of terms. Ie. If by 'ultimate reality is personal' you mean: 'a supernatural being exists that we call god' then use the term: 'god exists' and its opposite : 'god does not exist. ' otherwise you run the risk of being disingenuous. Stop// don't know if you are, but it could be interpreted as word play.
So is ultimate reality the set of most fundamental laws governing the Universe independent to what our mind thinks, from which all other laws can be derived and explained?
OR is it some central object or entity that is somehow responsible for the existence and nature of everything else?
Can you define and explain " Ultimate Reality " a bit more vigorously? Also, define personal.
Pages