Sam...there was a time when almost everyone alive on the planet...from every culture, context, and experience...would have "offered testimony" that the Earth was a pancake flat object in the center of the universe and that the sun, moon, and stars circled 'round it. There was a time, ONLY A HUNDRED YEARS AGO...when most scientists would have offered testimony that our galaxy was the entirety of the universe. — Frank Apisa

Almost everything you believe was arrived at through the testimony of others. When you read a book that's testimony, when you sit in a class that's testimony, when you listen to the news that's testimony, so testimony is the primary way we learn things. Of course not all testimony is good testimonial evidence, and in another 100 years what we believe today will be overturned. There are ways of evaluating testimonial evidence, and it's very similar to evaluating an inductive argument. To reject testimonial evidence as a primary source of evidence would be to reject much of what you know. You sure didn't do the scientific experiments involved in quantum physics, you rely on the testimony of those who have done the experiments.

↪Rank Amateur Of course it does, silly. Sheesh, your denialism is a real problem. You said that the analogy is a poor analogy, and the reasons you gave for this were bad reasons, so I set you straight. The analogy is a good analogy if you look at it in the right way, use it right, draw the right conclusions from it. Russell's teapot was being referenced and the lesson from that is a good one, so it's a good analogy if used right. You don't get to shift the burden of proof to others if you make the assertion that there exists a celestial teapot. Or rather, if you do, then you're not being reasonable. — S

It would add credibility to your pronouncements if, just occasionally, you would provide some support for them. It seems the only thing you need to tell someone they are wrong is your opinion they are. The infallible S has spoken. The problem is you are just a little man behind the curtain, just like the rest of us.

After you make a declarative sentence, add "because " and tell us why please.

Think about what we are discussing here, Sam.

We are discussing whether or not it is possible to calculate the existence or non existence of gods.

If you want to suppose the answer to that can be "YES" because we can ask people around us what they blindly guess...

...by all means suppose that.

I think it is an absurd notion.

Okay?

Much of this depends on what it means to know, so it's an epistemological question. As such, it depends on what you count as good evidence. Many people limit their knowledge to science, but there are plenty of ways of knowing apart from what science tells us. In fact, one of the main ways of attaining knowledge is through the testimony of others. And while it's true that testimony is the weakest way of knowing, it can also be very strong depending on the number of people making the claim, the consistency of the claims, whether the claims are taken from a variety of cultures, contexts, and experiences, etc. The way we evaluate the claims is similar to the way we evaluate a good inductive argument. — Sam26

Testimony is fine as long as it's not just testimony. There needs to be "physical" empirical evidence, including evidence both that the people who originally testified had solid physical empirical evidence backing the testimony and then a chain of evidence that people who bought the testimony had some sort of evidence aside from only testimony to justify buying it. For example, having evidence that so and so won't testify to something unless they had solid physical evidence to support the testimony, even then the person removed from the physical evidence there didn't actually witness the initial physical evidence themselves.

Aside from that, though, the idea of assigning likelihood to something we don't have frequency data for is just nonsensical.

I'm even skeptical of likelihood with frequency data for that matter.

The only thing any scientist would say about anything that lacks empirical evidence is that is lacks empirical evidence, that is it, that is the only judgment real science would make. Any other judgment you all make about the lack of empirical evidence for anything is not scientific, it either philosophy or theology.

God is not everything, if that's what you're suggesting. Everything is everything. I call things what they are in the clearest way. I gave you two options to turn a seeming falsehood into a truth: which is it? Illusion or trivial? Or are you sticking with a falsehood? — S

No, god is not everything. Just the opposite. God is just one of the boys, like love, bratwurst, and your dog Sonny. Well, not like Sonny. We all love and believe in Sonny. Good old Sonny.

Good boy Sonny. Aren't we a good boy, yes we are.

Which specific part do you disagree with or would like me to elaborate on? You've been very short and dismissive thus far, without saying anything helpful.

Sure. And I hang out with Frodo down in The Shire. We dance around for hours on end, then explode into a million pieces, and all the while Gandalph stares at us intently. Good old Gandalph. Aren't we a good wizard, Gandalph. Yes we are. Oh yes we are.

And I hang out with Frodo down in The Shire. We dance around for hours on end, and then explode into a million pieces, and Gandalph stares at us intently. Good old Gandalph. Aren't we a good wizard, Gandalph. Yes we are. Oh yes we are. — S

Well, yes, I was joking around, but if we leave out Sonny, I meant exactly what I said. Here's what Lao Tzu said, by way of Lin Yutang:

Tao is a hollow vessel,
And its use is inexhaustible!
Fathomless!
Like the fountain head of all things,
Its sharp edges rounded off,
Its tangles untied,
Its light tempered,
Its turmoil submerged,
Yet dark like deep water it seems to remain.
I do not know whose Son it is,
An image of what existed before God.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggghhhtt. :meh:

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggghhhtt. — S

S, you ignorant slut. (Who, other than @Bitter Crank, can tell me where that pop culture reference comes from. For double credit, who can tell me the pop culture reference to which this pop culture reference is a pop culture reference.)

When Lao Tzu et. al. talk about the "10,000 things" they refer to all the specific things of the world - love, bratwurst, dogs named "Sonny", quarks, pancakes, galaxies, imaginary wizards, imaginary equine animals, imaginary flying kitchen utensils, etc. And that includes god. God is just one of the specific things of the world - one of the 10,000 things. That was the point I was trying to make.

Ah, so you were trying to make the trivial appear profound. Yes, God is a thing. But a thing much more like an imaginary wizard than a dog named Sonny.

Ah, so you were trying to make the trivial appear profound. Yes, God is a thing. But a thing much more like an imaginary wizard than a dog named Sonny. — S

No, I'm trying to show that each of the 10,000 things, whether you call them profound or trivial, come from the same place. And, if you remember, we weren't talking about god, we were talking about the experience of god. The experience of god is as real as the experience of the smell of salt marsh hay. And as profound. And as trivial.

Dan Akroyd to Jane Curtan, the news desk, SNL, 1975.

The rejoinder is, ”Dan, you pompous ass....”

Gilda Radnor as special correspondent “Roseanne Rosannadanna”.

Riiiiiigggghhhtttt comes from Bill Cosby vinyl album, “NOAH!!! THIS IS GOD!!!” (Riiiigghhtttt) 1964..65....6 something.

Dan Akroyd to Jane Curtan, the news desk, SNL, 1975.

The rejoinder is, ”Dan, you pompous ass....” — Mww

Correct. The segment was called "Count, Pointer Count." Without looking at the web, what was that segment a pop culture reference to?

Point/counterpoint was a segment on 60 Minutes usually between Kirkpatrick and Hoffman.

Either just before or replaced by ma main man Andy Rooney

Who, other than Bitter Crank, can tell me where that pop culture reference comes from. — T Clark

So as it happens, I had not a clue to where it came from. I have huge gaps in my database of popular culture (just for one example). Somebody at work asked me "Are you sure you are gay?" when I couldn't place Donna Summers. I suppose I heard her at the queer bars a thousand times, but I wasn't there for pop-music appreciation. I was busy pursuing carnal goals.

In my dotage I've been going back (with the help of YouTube) to fill in some holes I don't have enough years left to fill them all in, so a lot of the holes will just stay empty.

In my dotage I've been going back (with the help of YouTube) to fill in some holes I don't have enough years left to fill them all in, so a lot of the holes will just stay empty. — Bitter Crank

Pseudo-significant SNL references:

• "Never mind." - Gilda Radner as Emily Latella
• "It's always something." - Gilda Radner as Rosanne Rosanadana
• Bass-o-Matik - Dan Ackroyd
• "I'm Chevy Chase and you're not," and "Good-night and have a pleasant tomorrow." - Chevy Chase, Weekend Update
• "Candygram" - Land Shark
• "Cheeseburger, cheeseburger, cheeseburger," and "No Pepsi, Coke." - John Belushi, Olympia Restaurant Skit
• "We're wild and crazy guys" - Dan Ackroyd and Steve Martin
• Mother's Day - Andy Samberg and Justin Timberlake - greatest SNL sketch ever. Greatest television broadcast event ever. High point of all Western culture. No, really, seriously.

wasn't ignoring you, busy weekend

This part.

We know a lot about tea pots, we know what they look like, we know how they move, we would know one if we saw one. We know a lot about horses, and flying and horns on foreheads. With what we know about teapots and unicorns and what we know about where to look for them. This is a reasonable statement, We know what a tea pot is, we know where the space between us and the sun is, we have looked at this space, and we haven't seen any tea pots, and with what we know about this space and teapots, we believe there are no tea pots there. And the same idea for unicorns.

We have no reasonable basis to say anything at all about the nature of God, since we have no reason to believe we know what God looks like, where God is, how God is or anything else at all. So we can't say, we know what God looks like, we know where God would be, we have looked in all the places we think God would be, and we don't see God, therefore there is no God.

The only thing you can say about no empirical evidence for God, is there is no empirical evidence for God. That's it.

Certainly a lot of "believing" going on here.

Sounds like guessing to me.

I wonder why you folk don't just call it guessing when it is guessing?

Mother's Day - Andy Samberg and Justin Timberlake — T Clark

I couldn't quite rate it as "greatest SNL sketch ever. Greatest television broadcast event ever. High point of all Western culture. No, really, seriously." But that's just me.

It's always a huge and dangerous risk to reveal what one thinks is really, really funny or really, really outrageous. Did you see Pink Flamingoes, by any chance?

The only thing any scientist would say about anything that lacks empirical evidence is that is lacks empirical evidence, that is it, that is the only judgment real science would make. Any other judgment you all make about the lack of empirical evidence for anything is not scientific, it either philosophy or theology. — Rank Amateur

Scientists aren't going to be agnostics about the idea of, say, there being tranvestite ballerinas orbiting some distant star just because there's no evidence of the same. If the idea is clearly bonkers, with absolutely nothing to support anywhere near the notion of something so implausible, they'll just dismiss it until they run across any sort of evidence that suggests it might have some merit.

For some things that are widely accepted, they won't make those rejection moves simply as a public relations matter. But they're not going to get into social hot water by saying that there are obviously no transvestite ballerinas orbiting a distant star.

they may not go looking for your ballerina. But all science is based on doubt and the understanding that nothing is provable.

All science says about things without empirical evidence is there is no empirical evidence. That is all.

All science ever says is our best evidence shows X is.

Or our best evidence shows X is not

If there is no evidence it says nothing

It's always a huge and dangerous risk to reveal what one thinks is really, really funny or really, really outrageous. Did you see Pink Flamingoes, by any chance? — Bitter Crank

I'll stand behind my judgment. I'm with @ZhouBoTong, whatever crap I say is good is good. "Transformers" is better than "Hamlet." Big Macs are better than the potato and Brussels sprout soup at Ill Capriccio in Waltham, MA. Robert Crumb is greater than Leonardo Da Vinci. Oh, wait. R. Crumb is the greatest artist in all history.

No, I didn't see PF. I tend to avoid films with fat, unattractive drag queens and eating feces, but that's just me. I trust you enough that if you tell me it's the greatest movie in history. Better than "Casablanca" and "Cadyshack," I'll believe you.

Well, Pink Flamingoes is definitely not the greatest movie in history (since at least the reign of Nebuchadnezzar). Casablanca would be in the running for the honor of best film of all time. No, Pink Flamingoes is merely one of the top ten most tasteless movies on record. It is funny in its tastelessness (I like an atrociously tasteless comedy sometimes), and the final fecal focused scene at the end of the flick is one among many tasteless scenes. Well, actually all the senes are tasteless.

I'm with ZhouBoTong, whatever crap I say is good is good. — T Clark

This is sound art theory ever since Marcel Duchamp, which is over a century ago, now.

"Science saying something" is scientists saying something. And scientists definitely say that completely implausible, incoherent, etc. things don't exist when there's no evidence for them. They don't remain agnostic on everything.

Scientists aren't going to be agnostics about the idea of, say, there being tranvestite ballerinas orbiting some distant star just because there's no evidence of the same. If the idea is clearly bonkers, with absolutely nothing to support anywhere near the notion of something so implausible, they'll just dismiss it until they run across any sort of evidence that suggests it might have some merit. — Terrapin Station

Have you ever heard of a Boltzmann Brain?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

The argument Boltzmann made is pretty much the same as the argument for orbiting transvestite ballerinas.

Sure. I wouldn't say that nothing stupid is forwarded in the name of science. Scientists don't actually have a monobrain. :razz:

Sure. I wouldn't say that nothing stupid is forwarded in the name of science. Scientists don't actually have a monobrain. — Terrapin Station

It is my understanding that the Boltzmann Brain concept is taken seriously by some non-goofy scientists.