Actual and Ignorant possibility

Consider the meaning of the word “possible”…

“It’s possible for humans to invent a time machine” COULD be the equivalent of:

(1) “The necessisary preconditions for humans inventing a time machine, are present.” which is a positive claim in need of justification.

OR it could mean that

(2) “humans Inventing a time machine is not necessarily impossible.” Which means that there exists no 100% certain truth in contradiction to humans inventing time travel.

I have noticed that theism often depends on our inability to distinguish between the two.

Consider this:

A) “It is possible that there exists a god”… most atheists would be able to agree with this statement…

B) “given god exists, it is possible for God to porform miracles” again we agree with such a statement.

C) “It is possible that miracles HAVE been porformed by god.” this too seems reasonable…

BUT… Here’s the problem…

A uses the word “possible” as understood in (2)… B uses “possible” as understood in (1)…

But C is not so clear cut… If an atheist were to agree to C (as is understood in (2)) then the theist will take it to mean (1)… going on to present “historical evidence” without first establishing the positive claim made given we understand it as (1).

A precondition of god porforming miracles is the existence of god…
A precondition for humans inventing stories about miracles porformed by god, is motive.

Motive exists…

But it’s only possible(2) that god exists…

I’m still trying to refine this argument… any help would be apritiated

Mad man,

Give it up. If the sleight-of-hand shell game isn’t obvious by now, it never will be. The theist has to have a paradigm where all things are possible. The aethiest or agnostic has no choice but to grant possibility given that not all is, or ever will be known. With all possibilities on the table, the theist is free to create whatever he wishes, just as is the aetheist. That is the stand off.

I’ve asked repeatedly for a clear description of apriori assumptions that then provide a foundational base for whatever construct an individual might choose to put forth. The request has be ignored - repeatedly. It makes all the so-called discussion moot. Beginning in the middle may be a fun exercise, but it is bad philosophy. That’s the problem with assumptions, they cut through all the blah blah blah and force the constructs into an appropriate narrow point of view. We mustn’t do that because we might not have any more to say… :unamused:

tentative

I have no idea what you just said…

My best guess is that you wish to dicuss epistomology… If so, you might want to start a thread on that. I would be happy to participate…

tentative Try starting your own thread, maybe? The only time I’ve seen you raise your terribly important questions is when other people were having a conversation about something else, and answering you would be a month-long sidetrack.

Mad Man P

I think a good first step would be to pick a different word than ‘possible’ for 1. You can still base your argument on people’s conflating the two ideas, but you’re just asking for trouble if you call them both possible, since you’re obviously trying to approach this from an analytic perspective, and ‘possible’ only ever means 2 in that field. Your comparing a vulgar term to a precise one.

I don’t understand what you mean by “pick another word”…

I was trying to show that the word “possible” CAN be understood as either 1 or 2… and that this often causes confusion in a discussion.

In that one might reasonably accept a “possibility” as understood in 2, but then present evidence for it’s truth as though it was understood as 1.

What exactly is it you would have me do to improve this argument… what “other” word could I use to show that this type of equivocation exists?

Am I making this seem confusing?

It depends on how much you intend to write on this, it’s just going to get confusing if you don’t settle on another term, like say “Logical possibility” vs " practical odds" or something like that. I think you can talk about the equivocation just fine, and use distinct terms when refering to the distinct concepts yourself.

Uccisore

I understand how it could get confusing if I refer to both (1) and (2) as “possibility”… but I’m a bit unwilling to stop using the word “possible” in association with both (1) and (2), since that could serve to remove the attention from the core of the problem I am trying to adress…

I don’t actually mean to say that the theist porpusfully obfuscates the difference between the two meanings the word “possible”… I believe that there is a ligitimate confusion in how we tend to use the word… I am merely trying to shed light on the differences for 2 reasons…

  1. to raise awareness in future conversations…
    and
  2. to demonstrate why the possibility(2) of miracles is far less likely when discussing probability than the possiblity(1) of natural causes.

I would like to call (1) Actual possibility and (2) Ignorant possibility.

I would like to do so because of how 1 is a statement based on evidence in support of it… while the other is a statement based on a LACK of evidence to the contrary.

Historians often rely on proving the actual possibility of their interpretations of the present evidence in order to accurately estimate what transpired in days long gone… They rarely (if ever) resort to positing ignorant possiblities in order to explain the evidence.

A good example would be how we interpret dinosaur fossils. It is an actual possibility that bones become fossilized (the preconditions exist). It is also an actual possibility that animals leave bones behind when they die.

If we could not observe animals leaving bones behind nor observe the stepts leading to fossilization… concluding that dinosaurs existed would be highly irrational based on the evidence…

Likewise with a third hand account of testimonies given that a person came back from the dead… we would be negligent if we did not use the obervable fact that humans do not come back from the dead after 3 days when estimating the truth of these claims.

When I say it is possible that Jesus did not come back from the dead after 3 days… I do so based on OBSERVABLE evidence… making it an actual possibility…

When you say that it is possible that he DID come back from the dead… you do so based on the LACK of evidence to the contrary.

It should be clear that mine is the stronger case…

I think tentative is right.

When referring to possible existence, ‘possible’ can be used metaphysically or epistemically. If I say “Nessie does not exist,” theists just like virtually everyone else, nod their heads in agreement because they know that I am referring to epistemic possibility, not to metaphysic possibility.

In fact, theists nod their head in agreement almost everytime I make claims about the possible existence (or nonexistence) of entities: “Cars exist” (Yes, the theist nods); “Cows exist” (Yes, the theist nods); “Santa and the Tooth Fairy don’t exist” (Again theists agree); “Gods don’t exist” --(No!, the theist shouts. Wrong! It is possible that gods exist because you cannot prove beyond a doubt that they don’t!, they say.)

So what just happened here? I cannot prove that the Tooth Fairy doesn’t exist beyond a doubt, either, but the theist just agreed with me that the Tooth Fairy doesn’t exist. So why should the existence of gods be any different?

What’s happened is that the theist has equivocated on the phrase “possible existence.” Until “gods” were brought into the discussion, “possible existence” was interpreted as epistemic possibility, not metaphysic possibility. Now, suddenly, this changes. To a theist, the mere metaphysic possibility that gods exist are enough for them to maintain that we cannot say “Gods do not exist.”

This is the sleight-of-hand to which I believe tentative refers.

Most theists do this unintentionally and buy into it because they do not critically examine their belief in the existence of gods. Some non-theists (some self-described agnostics) are fooled by this sleight-of-hand but I doubt that many others are.

Not if you’re talking about metaphysic possibility. It is completely rational to believe that any act or event or behavior or putative entity exists metaphysically unless those acts, events, behaviors, etc., are logical impossibilities.

Again, the equivocation that is taking place here, the one that you label with the terms ‘ignorant possibility’ and ‘actual possibility,’ is usually called, respectively, ‘metaphysic possibility’ and ‘epistemic possibility.’

That’s true only in the case of metaphysic possibility. In the case of epistemic possibility, the ‘possibility’ that is referred to is actually the probability of human knowledge.

IOW, yes, it is true that if the universe is deterministic (which certainly appears to be the case) then either an event will happen (or has happened) or it will not happen (or has not happened) and no probability attaches metaphysically. Epistemically, however, the possibility that an event did or did not occur is still described in terms of probability.

In terms of Jesus’ alleged resurrection: metaphysically, it either happened or it didn’t happen, period.

The probability that it occurred or didn’t applies only to the state of our knowledge about that event in the world as far as we know.

Metaphysically? Yes, because the world appears to be determined.

Epistemically, OTOH, no, because our knowledge of the world is not absolute.

When we talk about, for example, whether it is rational to believe that Jesus was resurrected, we are talking about epistemic possibility and epistemic possibility is probable.

Reality Check

I Tend to like your distinction of “metaphysicle” and “epistemic” possibility… but by whatever name… There is a distinction and there exists an equivocation which paves the way for theism…

In regular conversation the word “possible” is used in both cases… and it serves to obfuscate the distinction needed…

Tortoise

You make an excelent point…

An actual possibility in a deterministic universe either has, is or will occure… if not… than it was never an “actual possibility.”

But if you go up and read the description for an “actual possibility” in (1)… It is a statement about the preconditions being met.

If humans exist, then water exists.

The existence of water is a precondition for the existence of humans. (we are circa 90% water after all).

But if water exists it’s by no means necessarily true that humans exist…

HOWEVER… If i can show water to exist… I have at least ONE pieace of evidence suggesting that it would be an actual possibility that humans exist too… ect…

When I say “it is possible for me to build a car from scartch”… that does not mean that I will actually do so… or HAVE done so… it just means that all the preconditions for this happening are met… it’s an “actual” possibility.

the only thing I am ignorant of in this case is IF I will do so… not if I COULD do so…

When I say it is possible that god has porformed miracles I say so because I am ignorant of, not only if he did do so, but also if he COULD do so… I am even ignorant of the most vital precondition of all… if god exists at all…

Mad Man & Ucc,

I guess I am talking about “something else”. That it is the missing component in 99% of the discussion in this forum apparently isn’t very important. So I won’t start a new thread about something irrelevent to the majority. I apologize for any distraction.

RC,

You understand the issue and see the consequences. But let it go. It is a minority point of view.

Tent… I just don’t quite understand what it is you are talking about… Could you clerify?

Of course you don’t.
If you did you wouldn’t be spewing out such absurdities.

A telltale sign of absurdity is that it can be used to support any hypothetical,including the ones that are totally detached from reality.

The possible: Anything the human mind can imagine by combining the known into projections of the unknown.

I can imagine unicorns and so they are possible.

Probable: A set of possibilities based on empirical justifications constituting them as more or less possible.

Whereas anything the human mind can imagine may be possible it cannot be called probable.
Unicorns are improbable, even if possible, because there is no justification for them and no empirical evidence that would necessitate their possibility.

Seeking for reasons to prove what the mind imagines to be comforting or absent, is how a coward copes with reality.

The world is as it appears and nothing more can be said about it.
Whomever seeks an underlying, hidden, world is merely expressing his dissatisfaction or anxiety concerning the phenomenal world.

No beginnings nor ends are evident anywhere and so none can be supposed as being probable.
Possible yes, for keeping an open mind is a remaining skeptical on any declarations of truth.

No absolute is evident anywhere and so none can be supposed to be hiding behind the apparent.

Using epistemology to support the absurd is how a retarded intellect seeks salvation in a universe that offers him none.

If an epistemology does not adhere to a shared and obvious standard it is hypothetical and forever improbable.
In this case man measures his conscious against empirical evidence and a shared reality we call world.

Any epistemology that has as its reference point a man made artifice, such as a book, is forever improbable.
Any epistemology dependent on unobservable realities and mysterious beyondness or outside space/time continuum, is forever improbable.

Changing retarded minds, possible but forever improbable.
In the end sheep will be sheep and their only usefulness is to be exploited and corralled by more clever minds.

Such is the world.

Here’s another:

Indulging in some ego boosting shooting-fish-in-a-barrel fun… probable.

Continuing to waste my time by seriously engaging such fish… improbable.

Mad Man,

Each and every person who reads or posts here has made “sense” of the universe. To do that, each makes certain assumptions about how the universe is, and how it functions. That individual perspectives differ is a giant understatement.

Look at any post in this forum and see if you can determine the apriori assumptions being made. The majority of the posts made here, whether statement or question, revolves around a super-question: what do you mean by what you say? Anything I might say is rooted in my apriori assumptions, which is true for everyone here. That we fail to lay out those assumptions when discussing epistomology is the guaranteed disagreement that goes on and on and on…

The thread on the case for theism is the perfect example. There are two basic assumptions made: the theist has assumed that there is agency behind all noumena -ie- God, the man behind the curtains. The atheist or hard agnostic assumes that there is no agency behind noumena. Neither can prove the assumptions they make, but they each make the best “case” they can without ever explicitly stating their beginning assumptions. The result is that there is a constant talking ‘past’ one another.

Perhaps this isn’t important. Obviously it isn’t, or there would be some effort put forward to state assumptions to provide a foundation for further discussion.

But enough. I’m not trying to derail this thread. I was asking for a grounding of the discussion and apparently that takes away from your OP and the following posts. Again, my apologies.

Satyr

Please read some posts before you comment…

You are attacking a straw man… Did you have a bad day at work or something?

tentative

I do agree with you on this…

You might read the Materialism thread for some insight into my epistomological position… I did make Uccisore post his epistemic position (at least somewhat) on the case for theism thread… and I gave up on the conversation when epistomology as subject was taken off the table… there was no inconsistency between his epistemic position and subsequent theism…

Crerate a thread on epistomology and apriori assumptions… and I would be more than happy to participate…

This thread was mainly created so that I might use it in the future as a “link” instead of explaining the details anew anytime an equivocation is made with the word “possible”…

So your saying that theists belive in God because they want to belive and just have not studied the facts enough. I would put it to you to take your own pill and realise that there is alot of logical arguments as to the existance of God. From extensive reasurch and a subsiquent mental disorder pertaining from having to know the truth of the matter, (OCD, which I have now overcome) I have found that not only is it impossible to know if there is a God but it is hugely unsure how probable it is that he exists.

During my obsessive search that normally consited of spending 8 hours a day compiling evidence from either side searching internet sites and text books. Poring over argument after counter argument. Becoming convinced one way then the other and then back again.

Of course mabey I was fooling myself when I looked at all the theistic arguments, that I just wanted them to be true. But then I debased alot of arguments because of their shoddy reasoning, why would some and not others convince me if I was not truely trying to find the truth? Not to mention that it made no difference to my mood when I found arguments that seemed to fit the bill of there being a God, just another part of the cycle that lead me on to find a counter argument.

Mabey I’m just not smart enough to see the logic. But then I think to myself there are alot of people who support some of the atheistic arguments that are quite obviously not as clever as me, infact I’ve read reports from people on both sides of the argument that are obviously well above my level. So intellegance seems to have nothing to do with it either.

I’ve read about theists turned atheist and atheists turned theist. I became more uncirtain the longer the quest went on. I came to realise that after so much study into both sides of the argument the only logical things I could conclude was that there was no way of knowing if there was a God but more than this that there was no way of knowing how likely it was that he does exist either.

In truely looking for the truth the only conclusion that can be made at the end of your search if we are honest to ourselves is that logically we cannot know. What ever side of the fence we choose to sit on its because of our feelings, not our thoughts. Not just for the theists

Rhinoboy

… So it’s reasonable to believe in unicorns if we feel like it?

I’m sorry… This does not compute…

Beliefe based on ignorence seems irrational to me… and a frightening notion too…

What if you felt like believing that your wife was an alien posing as a human plotng to kill you in your sleep? would you go and kill her first then?

Logically… there is no way of knowing if she is or is not an alien… and since you do not know how many % of the world’s population are aliens in disguise… you don’t know how to calculate the odds either… So you might as well believe she is an alien and go kill her… IF you feel like it… right?

Or did I miss something?