My Challenge to “Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof”

[Ion]

**Originally Posted by Love4All
Tyrion, if category 4 regards those things (if any) that are beyond the physical universe, what kind of evidence can we expect?

Tyrion:Well, that is the point, isn’t it?**

What point?

 

[Equites_Christi]

Imagine a man who, for one reason or another, has the idea that a spoon is the only form of cutlery. When he encounters a fork or a knife, he says, “What a misshapen, useless spoon that is.” When he encounters bread or meat, he says “I cannot eat this with a spoon, therefore it must not be food.”

Such is the person who starts with the assumption that only that which can be known through the physical sciences can be true.

How many of us have seen, from space and with our own two eyes, the roundness of the earth? Or seen the emperor Nero, or personally scrutinized the evidence for his existence?
Yet how many of us have believed these things, because we trust the sources who told us?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

How many of us have seen, from space and with our own two eyes, the roundness of the earth? Or seen the emperor Nero, or personally scrutinized the evidence for his existence?
Yet how many of us have believed these things, because we trust the sources who told us?

I think this is what was being touched on back in message #36.

…]
(Mind you, one can rely on the word of some authority, but that is not an epistemological method, it is an epistemological shortcut! And it is contingent upon the ability of that authority to substantiate the claim - without referring to some other authority. The “buck” must stop somewhere. )…]

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Tyrion;10559622:

Well, that is the point, isn’t it?

What point?

He had been illustrating that we do not have a supernatural epistemology or any way of testing some one’s claims on supernatural matters.

 

[Ion]

He had been illustrating that we do not have a supernatural epistemology or any way of testing some one’s claims on supernatural matters.

I’v got itIf supernatural shows up to mr Randi for 1 million dollars, then better not forget the supernatural epistemology because otherwise mr Randi can’t check his supernaturality…

 

[Tyrion]

I’v got itIf supernatural shows up to mr Randi for 1 million dollars, then better not forget the supernatural epistemology because otherwise mr Randi can’t check his supernaturality…

No, you don’t get it. The question is about a general method to decide if some claim about the “supernatural” is true or not. For certain questions the decision is easy: “if someone shows up and claims that a specific prayer will heal someone whose leg has been lost in an accicent” - that is easy to verify - and Randi will have to cough up those million bucks. If however someone claims that another prayer will release a “soul” from purgatory, how does he plan to substantiate that claim? Or the claim that everyone is assigned a guardian angel at the time of conception. Or that epilepsy is caused by demonic possession… oops, that claim is out of fashion these days.

The funny stuff that despite the “ban” to test God, the believers keep on testing God… millions of times every day - with supplicative prayers. Of course the tests turn out to provide negative results. But that does not faze anyone. The “blind faith” will help them to explain away the lack of success… maybe it was not granted, because the time is not right, or God knows better… or whatever excuse they come up with. It is pretty much like someone asserting that a heavy object will fall “upwards” when released. So he performs thousands and millions of experiments… and that stupid rock will stubbornly fall to the ground every time. However, the poor guy keeps on experimenting. Sad spectacle, indeed.

 

[jonathan_hili]

That does not help either. “Perfection” is as undefined or subjectively defined as any other “aggregate” attribute. A “perfect” dinner for a carnivore is not the same as a “perfect” dinner for a herbivore. A perfect dinner for a blind person is very different from a perfect dinner for a sighted person. Besides “perfection” is not immune to self-contradiction. A perfect bullet can penetrate any armor… while a perfect armor can withstand any bullet. There is no such thing as “maximally perfect” in a vacuum. Perfection only exists in relation to something.

Not to mention that “omnipotence” and “omniscience” are also virtually undefined. The literal meaning of being able to do “everything”, and knowing “everything” are clearly nonsensical. The more modern usage of being “maximally powerful” - meaning to ge able to do everything that can be done, or knowing everything that can be known simply changes the “goalposts”… since now we need to find out just “what” can be done and “what” can be known.

The point is that there is no coherent, objective definition of a GCB. After all it requires fantasy, and people have varying amount of fantasy. For example (and let’s not get distracted here) “my” GCB is able to perform “evil acts”, but does not choose to, while the traditional catholic concept of God that he is unable to act against his “nature”, and is unable to do evil acts. As such there can be no common ground even if one attempts to “stick to” the idea of “perfection”.

Fair points, Tyrion.

I think your examples point to something of perfection, though. For instance, what makes a “perfect” dinner for a herbivore is different from that of a carnivore, or what makes a “perfect” bullet is different from “perfect” armour. If, by perfection, we can mean the maximal fulfillment or actualisation of potential according to the nature of a thing, I think we can get to something of what we mean by GCB.

However, I’m not sure how attributes like omniscience – having the ability to know all things – and omnipotence – having the ability to do all things – provided neither of these attributes are contradictory to other attributes and GCB’s nature, can be “clearly nonsense”?

Certainly, there may be uncertainties about what attributes GCB could be objectively said to have, but I think there is room for discussion here. For instance, if GCB is able to do evil but chooses not to, that must mean that His being is not altogether aligned with His will. The Catholic alternative is that GCB not only chooses to not to evil but cannot do so because His very nature is the Good. Which one is greater: a GCB who has a disharmonious will and nature, or one that doesn’t? Moreover, we have to ask whether actually doing evil is a positive or negative attribute.

As I said, we might not be able to iron-out every attribute, but I think we can come to some definite conclusions.

Another example, for instance, is that GCB cannot be maximally or infinitely tall or short, since these attributes are measurable (and so, you could always conceive of an even greater being who is maximally tall + 1) and I don’t think generally considered “perfections”. Being tall is not a deprivation of “shortness”, or short a deprivation of “tallness”, whereas being ignorant is a deprivation of knowledge, and impotence is a deprivation of power.

 

[tonyrey]

He had been illustrating that we do not have a supernatural epistemology or any way of testing some one’s claims on supernatural matters.

The discussion is futile because no one has ever defined the precise meaning of “natural” - a term which is so flexible it accommodates every new discovery!

Is **all **personal activity “natural”? If so how can that assumption be demonstrated? I bet no explanation will be forthcoming…

 

[MPat]

I went and read the linked page. Actually it refers to “paranormal” as “supernatural” - according to the dictionary definition. Moreover, the exclusion of “religious claims” is not absolute. If someone would submit a testable claim, it would be considered. For example: “claiming that a certain prayer will have better results than a mere statistical fluctuation”. Or the demonstration of demons - as long as the demonstration occurs during the testing process.

After all, there is no real difference. A rose is a rose is rose … or in this case a hoax is a hoax is a hoax…

There is no difference between what? Testable claims and non-testable claims? Claims testable in specific way that the challenge requires and claims that cannot be tested in this way? Well, of course there is a difference. The fact that the money still belongs to Randi’s foundation is an argument against the claims that could be tested in that specific way, but it is not an argument against the claims that cannot. And the FAQ shows that the representatives of Randi’s foundation do find that religious claims do not tend to be testable in the way they want. You might think this fact is an argument against religious claims, but even then you would have to accept that a difference exists.

 

[Ion]

No, you don’t get it. The question is about a general method to decide if some claim about the “supernatural” is true or not. For certain questions the decision is easy: “if someone shows up and claims that a specific prayer will heal someone whose leg has been lost in an accicent” - that is easy to verify - and Randi will have to cough up those million bucks. If however someone claims that another prayer will release a “soul” from purgatory, how does he plan to substantiate that claim? Or the claim that everyone is assigned a guardian angel at the time of conception. Or that epilepsy is caused by demonic possession… oops, that claim is out of fashion these days.

The funny stuff that despite the “ban” to test God, the believers keep on testing God… millions of times every day - with supplicative prayers. Of course the tests turn out to provide negative results. But that does not faze anyone. The “blind faith” will help them to explain away the lack of success… maybe it was not granted, because the time is not right, or God knows better… or whatever excuse they come up with. It is pretty much like someone asserting that a heavy object will fall “upwards” when released. So he performs thousands and millions of experiments… and that stupid rock will stubbornly fall to the ground every time. However, the poor guy keeps on experimenting. Sad spectacle, indeed.

Well, if there is no general method, then someone will have to believe mr randi and his claim, “substantiated” with nothing.
You think “paranormal” and supernatural are the same, great misunderstanding…
As thinkingsapien said (i think) , mr randi is after guys who “can bend spoons with their energies” and probably in the small print there is a contract to run a circus for couple of years, and make money…

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The discussion is futile because no one has ever defined the precise meaning of “natural” - a term which is so flexible it accommodates every new discovery!

Is the word also not precisely defined for the context of “natural law”?

 

[Ion]

No, you don’t get it. The question is about a general method to decide if some claim about the “supernatural” is true or not. For certain questions the decision is easy: “if someone shows up and claims that a specific prayer will heal someone whose leg has been lost in an accicent” - that is easy to verify - and Randi will have to cough up those million bucks. If however someone claims that another prayer will release a “soul” from purgatory, how does he plan to substantiate that claim? Or the claim that everyone is assigned a guardian angel at the time of conception. Or that epilepsy is caused by demonic possession… oops, that claim is out of fashion these days.

The funny stuff that despite the “ban” to test God, the believers keep on testing God… millions of times every day - with supplicative prayers. Of course the tests turn out to provide negative results. But that does not faze anyone. The “blind faith” will help them to explain away the lack of success… maybe it was not granted, because the time is not right, or God knows better… or whatever excuse they come up with. It is pretty much like someone asserting that a heavy object will fall “upwards” when released. So he performs thousands and millions of experiments… and that stupid rock will stubbornly fall to the ground every time. However, the poor guy keeps on experimenting. Sad spectacle, indeed.

Tyrion, your post is most pathetic. For you, is it more important to try to prove to mr randi the healing of a person, than the person healed? You contradict yourself man, “…there is no general method… is easy to verify…”
Thanks be to God, the Holy Church will continue to heal and save people. The Church have substantiated her claims, because there are proven saints and healed people, while you with mr randi are only talking bla bla bla, of which nobody cares.
Unfortunately, you are a total ignorant in this matters, otherwise you wouldn’t say such nonsense like “the believers keep on testing God”. Stay around, learn from what catholics say, and you have a chance.

 

[tonyrey]

The discussion is futile because no one has ever defined the precise meaning of “natural” - a term which is so flexible it accommodates every new discovery!

“natural law” is an unfortunate choice because it is ambiguous. Do you mean “law of nature” or “moral law based on human nature”?

More to the point, do you believe persons can in principle be explained by the laws of nature? If not why not?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

“natural law” is an unfortunate choice because it is ambiguous. Do you mean “law of nature” or “moral law based on human nature”?

I’m talking about in the moral context. I understand the scientific context; it’s is a synonym for “physical law.” In either case it’s a proposition/conclusion deduced from a particular set of conditions always being observed to produce a particular phenomenon.

More to the point, do you believe persons can in principle be explained by the laws of nature? If not why not?

Keeping in mind that the propositions of the explanation will only be as complete as our knowledge of a phenomenon (I’m ignoring for now the concept of “truth value”) people can only be explained to the limited extent of our knowledge. Out knowledge is incomplete. So we don’t have explanations for the totality of ever aspect of humans. Collectively we know some things and have a rather large volume of unanswered questions which map out out knowledge of what we don’t know.

 

[Tyrion]

I think your examples point to something of perfection, though. For instance, what makes a “perfect” dinner for a herbivore is different from that of a carnivore, or what makes a “perfect” bullet is different from “perfect” armour. If, by perfection, we can mean the maximal fulfillment or actualisation of potential according to the nature of a thing, I think we can get to something of what we mean by GCB.

The point is that we speak of subjective assessment. Different people will pick and choose different attributes as “important”.

However, I’m not sure how attributes like omniscience – having the ability to know all things – and omnipotence – having the ability to do all things – provided neither of these attributes are contradictory to other attributes and GCB’s nature, can be “clearly nonsense”?

Both are undefined. Omnipotence does not mean “having the ability to do all things” and omniscience does not mean “having the ability to know all things”. To go into detail would require more space than a single post.

Certainly, there may be uncertainties about what attributes GCB could be objectively said to have, but I think there is room for discussion here. For instance, if GCB is able to do evil but chooses not to, that must mean that His being is not altogether aligned with His will. The Catholic alternative is that GCB not only chooses to not to evil but cannot do so because His very nature is the Good. Which one is greater: a GCB who has a disharmonious will and nature, or one that doesn’t? Moreover, we have to ask whether actually doing evil is a positive or negative attribute.

So God is simply a “robot” without free will. The being which is able, but not willing to do “evil” exercises free decision making, which is not possible for God.

As I said, we might not be able to iron-out every attribute, but I think we can come to some definite conclusions.

No matter what, they will stay subjective.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m talking about in the moral context. I understand the scientific context; it’s is a synonym for “physical law.” In either case it’s a proposition/conclusion deduced from a particular set of conditions always being observed to produce a particular phenomenon.

Keeping in mind that the propositions of the explanation will only be as complete as our knowledge of a phenomenon (I’m ignoring for now the concept of “truth value”) people can only be explained to the limited extent of our knowledge. Out knowledge is incomplete. So we don’t have explanations for the totality of ever aspect of humans. Collectively we know some things and have a rather large volume of unanswered questions which map out out knowledge of what we don’t know.

How can one establish a rational foundation for morality on “some things” amidst “a rather large volume of unanswered questions”? And what are the relatively few things we “know”?

 

[jonathan_hili]

The point is that we speak of subjective assessment. Different people will pick and choose different attributes as “important”.

Sure, but that’s going to be the case with practically any argument, and we are speaking about human conception here. I mean, your argument is “subjective”, so should I consider it untrue or capable of not being true? Of course not. Why should we not think that certain attributes, which people may disagree about, could not be both subjectively and objectively true? I think we can reach certain attributes that would be undeniable, and others less so.

Both are undefined. Omnipotence does not mean “having the ability to do all things” and omniscience does not mean “having the ability to know all things”. To go into detail would require more space than a single post.

Well, omnipotence is usually understood as “having the ability to do all possible things”, and omniscience as you said. I still don’t see how this is nonsense. Okay, it’s kind of undefined (it is somewhat defined), but that doesn’t mean it’s nonsensical.

So God is simply a “robot” without free will. The being which is able, but not willing to do “evil” exercises free decision making, which is not possible for God.

It doesn’t follow that God doesn’t have “free will” because He cannot do evil. God is “the Good” and this is part of His being. To do “evil” is to contradict “the Good”. Nobody can contradict their being. In fact, freedom and free will mean to fulfill being, not to contradict it. For example, if I freely choose to enslave myself (let’s say, to an addiction), then I am contradicting my freedom, not enhancing it. The more one is fulfilling one’s being, the more free one is. “Free will” doesn’t so much mean as “do whatever you want” as “fulfill what you are”.

And this touches on the point of omnipotence above: for God, as “the Good” to do evil would be a logical contradiction. That’s why it’s impossible

 

[ThinkingSapien]

How can one establish a rational foundation for morality on “some things” amidst “a rather large volume of unanswered questions”? And what are the relatively few things we “know”?

As you’ve heard me say in previous discussions there is some entanglement of rational and irrational thought. But before some one can develop a morality at all the person needs to have the capacity to care and objects of concern. There are some people that seem to be unable to care for others outside of them self who may never develop a morality outside of ethical egoism.

Welcome to the human experience! If you put all your effort into it the best you are able to achieve will still have room for improvement. In general people tend to search for what they find to be satisficing solutions. We have limits on knowledge, time, resources, and many others. As new information becomes available you’ll find that some people will alter their behaviour rules because of them (ex: after discovering the well being of some other group is negatively impacted by the production of certain products some people will make the moral decision to no longer purchase that product). Some people won’t (some people don’t care how something is produced as long as they can get their products cheaply). More of my thoughts on this matter can be found in the first “Morality without God” thread (it now has sequels) starting at about message #116.

 

[tonyrey]

As you’ve heard me say in previous discussions there is some entanglement of rational and irrational thought. But before some one can develop a morality at all the person needs to have the capacity to care and objects of concern. There are some people that seem to be unable to care for others outside of them self who may never develop a morality outside of ethical egoism.

Welcome to the human experience! If you put all your effort into it the best you are able to achieve will still have room for improvement. In general people tend to search for what they find to be satisficing solutions. We have limits on knowledge, time, resources, and many others. As new information becomes available you’ll find that some people will alter their behaviour rules because of them (ex: after discovering the well being of some other group is negatively impacted by the production of certain products some people will make the moral decision to no longer purchase that product). Some people won’t (some people don’t care how something is produced as long as they can get their products cheaply). More of my thoughts on this matter can be found in the first “Morality without God” thread (it now has sequels) starting at about message #116.

Your argument wouldn’t have much effect - as you point out - on those who don’t care about others. This is the inevitable result of attempting to establish morality on the irrational foundation of an ultimately purposeless existence.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Your argument wouldn’t have much effect

It wasn’t an argument. It was an explanation.

as you point out - on those who don’t care about others.

Certainly, as I’m only stating my view. I’m not trying to move anyone. I’ve even started a thread discussing this before.

Though this seems to be a long way around discussing the question I had asked. Did you have a precise meaning for the word “natural”? If not, that’s fine.

I’m referring back to this comment:

The discussion is futile because no one has ever defined the precise meaning of “natural” - a term which is so flexible it accommodates every new discovery!.