rationalskepticism.org

Cito di Pense wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Indeed, with respect to the general postulate "a god type entity of some sort exists", I'm one of many here who regard that assertion as possessing the status "truth value unknown", as is the case with every untested assertion.

What's more important, Cali? The fact that many here regard an untested assertion as having "truth value unknown", or that the assertion has not been tested?

Given my track record of disdain for untested assertions, which is shared widely here, you should know that the entire point of me bringing this matter up, was to highlight the fact that the assertion is untested (and hence has the requisite status I expounded, which as a corollary renders the assertion discardable until someone performs the effort to perform a proper test thereof).

Indeed, that's the whole point of presenting the requisite discoursive rules - to push those who really have an interest in those assertions, to figure out a proper method of testing them, without which, said assertions remain discardable.

Cito di Pense wrote:Does a lack of testing mean any particular assertion is subject to testing? No, it doesn't.

Which, of course, is one of the first questions to ask about an assertion, as I seem to recall I've stated in the past, because without a test being possible, an assertion never loses that "truth value unknown" status.

Cito di Pense wrote:But you know the provenance of the 'god-type entity', don't you? Do you say you don't?

Actually, from the standpoint of the general form of the assertion I gave, the answer is "no, I don't". What I do know, however, is that any competent candidate isn't going to come from mythology. If that assertion is ever to be tested properly, and the devising of a proper test will propel the inventor thereof to Nobel Laureate status, then the contradiction and absurdity riddled candidates so beloved of mythology enthusiasts, will be conspicuously absent from the outcome of such test, simply by dint of being riddled with contradiction and absurdity. But that doesn't mean I'm in a position to predict the outcome any more than anyone else here is. I've repeatedly stated that the manner in which scientific progress has rendered supernatural entities surplus to requirements and irrelevant, makes it more likely that the answer to that question will be a resounding "no", once a proper test is conducted, but that body of data does not exclude an entity compatible with known physical laws, for example. One of the reasons mythological candidates are filed in the "reject" category, is that they are all too often asserted to be in a position to tell the laws of physics to fuck off, whenever this happens to be administratively convenient, and those familiar with the tendency of humans to reach for lazy solutions to administration issues, can expect any entity with this capability to use it frequently, to the point that [1] it's bloody obvious what's going on, and [2] the laws of physics cease to be the laws of physics, courtesy of said frequent dismissal.

The mere fact that the laws of physics are observably not being tossed into the bin on a routine basis, again points to mythological candidates for the job being ruled out.

Cito di Pense wrote:We know it does because we have some very old documents that refer to a 'god-type entity'. The entity, then, arrives from deep in our past, courtesy of ignorant goat roasters and the propensity for succeeding ground apes to revert to "monkey see, monkey do".

That troublesome past history doesn't mean we can't learn to adopt a new approach. Which is, I gather, what scientists did when they launched modern science.

My message to those possessing an enthusiasm for mythological entities, is quite simply, don't waste my time with apologetics, along with its manifest fabrications and abuses of proper discourse - instead, get off your arse, learn from the example scientists provided, and do the job properly, otherwise I'll regard your entire output as discardable.

Cito di Pense wrote:We are not yet examining the 'god-type entity' with fresh eyes, are we?

That's precisely one of the aims of my expositions - to bring this about.

Cito di Pense wrote:Perhaps that is why many here simply react when some people, known colloquially as 'experts', know how to test some assertions. Does this mean all assertions are subject to testing? I remind you that it does not.

Not that I need reminding, of course.

But that's one of the beauties of pushing people down this route - one of the questions that will be answered, once a proper, diligent search for a means of testing said assertion is underway, will be to answer the question of whether or not said assertion is indeed testable.

But then, I possess this human attribute called 'curiosity'. Which has been a primary driver for all that scientific success I've mentioned. You may think such assertions are a waste of time full stop, but, I recognise that there are a lot of people who don't share this view, and that arriving at a proper, rigorously constituted examination of said assertions, will be of utility value in sweeping away much of the dross arising from those goat-roasters you're disdainful of. Indeed, I recall that Douglas Adams satirised the entire business via Deep Thought:

"What's the use of us spending long nights arguing whether there is a god or not, if this bloody machine gives us his telephone number the next morning?"



Perhaps if we had a machine that could do this, it would put a stop to the rot?