.

Thomas Dziubla, Ph.D. v. Robert Baty on Imagination/Atheism

DEBATE DATES: May 25, 2011 thru May 28, 2011

SUBJECT: The Power of Imagination (Atheism)

PARTICIPANTS:

> Thomas Dziubla (aka “joobz”)
> Ph.D., Professor, Researcher
> University of Kentucky

.

> Robert Baty (aka RLBaty)
> IRS Appeals Officer, retired

 

THE ARGUMENT as proposed by Robert Baty

.

Major Premise:

> IF man was able to originate the idea/concept of
> God through the power of imagination, as opposed
> to reason and/or revelation, THEN man did originate
> the idea/concept of God through the power of
> imagination.

 

Minor Premise:

> Man was able to originate the idea/concept of God
> through the power of imagination, as opposed to
> reason and/or revelation.

 

Conclusion:

> Man did originate the idea/concept of God through
> the power of imagination.

 

Propositions:

.

(1)

The argument is valid.

.

(2)

Atheists believe it has true premises.

.

(3)

Robert Baty doesn’t believe it has true premises.

.

(4)

Someone reported:

.

– “(Daniel Dennett’s) point is NOT that
– science knows how religion evolved
– naturally, but that it has several
– ideas, and that all them are more
– plausible than the existence of a
– supernatural entity.”

.

Related Link:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=210115

.

THE DEBATE:


.

(1)

From: Thomas Dziubla, Ph.D. (aka “joobz”)
Date: Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Time: 9:34 PM MT

.

I wish to have this thread as an opportunity for
RLBaty to defend his statement 3.

.

RLBaty,

.

Why do you believe the premises to be false?

.


.

(2)

From: RLBaty
Date: Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Time: 10:25 PM MT

.

I had wishes too, but none here would act in good
faith in order that they might be realized.

.

So, pardon me if I think the conversation should
take a different, reasonable course, step by step.

.

So, let’s try this again and see if any progress
can be made regarding my argument and the claims
I make for it.

.

I will, with the setting up of this thread, try to
resist the temptation to further patronize the
anonymous snipers who may be intent on carrying on
in that other thread.

.

I will, in this thread, try to resist the temptation
to respond to any poster except “joobz”.

.

Here’s how I propose the chat here should proceed:

.

Is my argument so constructed that if its
premises are true its conclusion will follow
as true therefrom?

.

– RLBaty – Yes
– Joobz – ???

.

Do atheists believe the premises of my
argument to be true?

.

– RLBaty – Yes
– Joobz – ???

.

Is the major premise of my argument true?

.

– RLBaty – No
– Joobz – ???

.

Is the minor premise of my argument true?

.

– RLBaty – No
– Joobz – ???

.

Why do atheists believe the premises to
be true?

.

– To be discussed

.

Why doesn’t RLBaty believe the premises to
be true?

.

– To be discussed

.


.

(3)

From: Thomas Dziubla, Ph.D. (aka “joobz”)
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2011
Time: 3:37 AM MT

.

I will answer your questions as a means of
facilitating discussion.

> Is my argument so constructed that if its
> premises are true its conclusion will follow
> as true therefrom?
>
> – RLBaty – Yes

 

Joobz – Yes

> Do atheists believe the premises of my
> argument to be true?
>
> – RLBaty – Yes

 

Joobz – For the most part, yes.

> Is the major premise of my argument true?
>
> – RLBaty – No

 

Joobz – For the most part, yes.

> Is the minor premise of my argument true?
>
> – RLBaty – No

 

Joobz – For the most part, Yes.

> Why do atheists believe the premises to
> be true?

.

I answered in the affirmative with this question
as I believe it will help facilitate discussion.

.
Note that I am using imagination in the loosest
possible sense of the term, that god is a product
solely of the mind.

.

Our mental capacity is consistent with humans from
at least 100,000 years ago. As such observations of
modern human capacity is likely to have existed in
humans 100,000 years ago.

.

Briefly, The human cognitive modelling system exists
to improve social interactions. This system allows
for us to construct mental models of others to
predict behaviors and know how our behavior will/can
adjust their behavior. The heart of this model is the
ability to assign agency (intent of action) to
another human. This system has the unfortunate side
effect of assigning agency to things that are not
developed by a mind (e.g., weather patterns) and a
supernatural mind begins to emerge as an explanation
for these things.

.

In other words, the evolving concept of god that has
emerged in humans is effectively a form of Pareidolia.

.

There is additional bits of evidence that are supportive
to this point

.

1. such as the recorded evidence of a
“God spot” in the brain, which when
stimulated can recreate sensations of
supernatural splendor.

.

2. the fact that people use the same
self-model to decide their moral actions
and the moral actions god would want them
to do (instead of another moral action site).

.

We will leave it there for now.

.


.

(4)

From: Thomas Dziubla, Ph.D. (aka “joobz”)
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2011
Time: 6:41 AM MT

.

Originally Posted by Dancing David

> Considering that confirmation bias,
> pattern recognition and associative
> learning are all part of the biology
> of brains, it seems to me that they
> do not fit into the categories of reason,
> imagination or revelation. Each of those
> processes are involved in the perception
> of qualities that may or may not be valid.
>
> So the argument is limited and false in
> its simplistic categorizations. As an atheist
> I willing to discuss that there are alternatives
> to the three categories and that imagination is
> most likely not the reason at all for the idea
> of gods and beliefs in gods.

.

In principle, I agree with you.

.

But for purposes here, I think it acceptable to
lump all forms of mental creationg of god into the
imagination category.

.

The way I am taking his point (and I hope this is
what he means, as it would be a rather silly argument
otherwise?

.

Is god was either:

> Deduced through sound mental
> reasoning (reason)

> Put into man’s mind by an external,
> potential divine source.(revalation)

> Or was a creation of mans mind through
> any inventive mechanism.(imagination)

.

These categories aren’t perfect, and overlap exists,
with neuances being glossed over.

.

But they are acceptable for the current discussion.

.

If his point or retorts attempt to exploit the loss
in detail that occurs from this course graining, we
will address it then.

.


.

(5)

From: RLBaty
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2011
TIme: 8:46 AM MT

.

Joobz,

.

Before attempting to move along with our chat, I will
give you the opportunity to counsel the numerous
interlopers who appear to have showed up.

.

As my experience here has demonstrated, those people
don’t much listen to me.

.

So, before I proceed in my chat with you, I will give
you time to counsel those who are having trouble getting
the message about your intentions regarding the
setting up of this thread, according to your wishes and
contrary to mine, and my intentions in accommodating your
interests and compromising my own.

.

Any who wish to obtain my personal response and chat
directly with me, can find me via the website found in
the “contact” section of my information page here.

.

Anonymous applicants need not apply.

.


.

(6)

From: RLBaty
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2011
Time: 8:56 AM MT

.

As previously discussed with joobz, I will be attempting
to mirror the relevant parts of this discussion on my
discussion list.

.

Joobz would not agree to cooperate in that wish of mine
for the discussion he has proposed. So, among other things,
it will slow the pace of the exchange down
a bit.

.

If any here is concerned about me leaving out what you
think is an important part of this discussion of these
important public issues, you are welcome to come around
my place (see earlier message for how to find it) and
add your comments.

.


.

(7)

From: Thomas Dziubla, Ph.D. (aka “joobz”)
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2011
Time: 9:10 AM MT

.

Originally Posted by RLBaty

> As previously discussed with joobz,
> I will be attempting to mirror the
> relevant parts of this discussion
> on my discussion list.
>
> Joobz would not agree to cooperate
> in that wish of mine for the discussion
> he has proposed. So, among other things,
> it will slow the pace of the exchange
> down a bit.
>
> If any here is concerned about me leaving
> out what you think is an important part
> of this discussion of these important
> public issues, you are welcome to come
> around my place (see earlier message for
> how to find it) and add your comments.

.

I am busy all day but have received word from
darat that a moderated debate will be possible.

.
I will work out particulars in pm.

.


.

(8)

From: RLBaty
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2011
TIme: 9:40 AM MT

.

Originally Posted by joobz

> I am busy all day but have received
> word from darat that a moderated debate
> will be possible.
>
> I will work out particulars in pm.

.

I was content to proceed here, but I’ll put my further
participation on hold until I hear further from you
regarding another option.

.

I already knew that a moderated chat was possible; the
details being the only stumbling block to producing such
a thing.

.

Beware of your course, however, joobz!

.

That you claim you are going to work out the details
suggests that you think you can, unilaterally, design
the construct of the event. You are welcome to give
that a try, but I suspect you are going to have trouble
designing and producing such a thing without negotiating
important details with me and without me being able to
negotiate important details with any who may presume to
participate and/or moderate such an event.

.

For example, for purposes of such an event, one of my
requirements is that there be no anonymous participants,
including moderators. Confirming identities and basic
employment, education, etc. background details would be
a reasonable and normal process for setting up the context
of the discussion.

.

Assorted other details would also have to be, Randi-like,
negotiated.

.

You know me, though. I’ll go with the flow and see where
it is you are wanting to take this thing.

.

I’ll try to rest up for whatever might come down the pike.

.

There’s a big holiday weekend coming up around here. So,
it may be that not much is going to change over the course
of the next few days.

.


.

(9)

From: Thomas Dziubla, Ph.D. (aka “joobz”)
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2011
Time: 9:45 AM MT

.

Originally Posted by RLBaty

> Joobz,
>
> Before attempting to move along with
> our chat, I will give you the opportunity
> to counsel the numerous interlopers who
> appear to have showed up.
>
> See my message #4 above.
>
> As my experience here has demonstrated,
> those people don’t much listen to me.
>
> So, before I proceed in my chat with you,
> I will give you time to counsel those who
> are having trouble getting the message about
> your intentions regarding the setting up of
> this thread, according to your wishes and
> contrary to mine, and my intentions in
> accommodating your interests and compromising
> my own.
>
> Any who wish to obtain my personal response
> and chat directly with me, can find me via
> the website found in the “contact” section
> of my information page here.
>
> Anonymous applicants need not apply.

.

As I move forward with getting a moderated debate
with you, why not reply to my good faith response
to your argument.

.

As you can see, jref is not monolithic and people
here have a variety of very valuable ideas. I do not
speak on their behalf and am not so presumptuous to
think I could.

.

To devull (interloper);

.

I agree it is a shakey issue to lump those effects
into imagination.

.


.

(10)

From: Thomas Dziubla, Ph.D. (aka “joobz”)
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2011
Time: 9:47 AM MT

If anonimity is a deal breaker, we are done.

—————————————————

(11)

From: RLBaty
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2011
Time: 9:51 AM MT

Originally Posted by joobz

> If anonimity is a deal breaker,
> we are done.

 

That impasse is so noted.

If you prefer, we can continue here and see how
it goes.

The interlopers are welcome to do as they wish.
Such activity, given the context of the discussion,
adds important information for evaluating the exercise,
as does the demand from you and/or moderators that you
maintain your anonymity.

Keep me advised.

I’ve got some mirroring to do, and other things, and
so it will be awhile before I get back to responding
to your response to my first message; if that is the
course you wish to take.

—————————————————–

(12)

From: Thomas Dziubla, Ph.D. (aka “joobz”)
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2011
Time: 9:59 AM MT

Let’s continue here.

Please respond to my current argument, post 8.

—————————————————–

(13)

From: RLBaty
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2011
Time: 5:12 PM MT

Joobz,

Briefly,

I saw nothing in your comments about Pareidolia,
“god spots” or moral thinking to support the
proposition that imagination is capable of originating
the idea/concept of God and that it has been shown to
have originated the idea/concept of God.

Did you intend to concede my point that atheists, in
believing the premises to be true, believe beyond the
limits of the evidence?

I think the commentator got it right when noting that
Daniel Dennett properly made the point regarding the
state of the science NOT having established such
power for imagination and NOT having established that
such power originated the idea/concept of God.

If you wish to try and show otherwise, I would propose
that you provide specific links and short excerpts therefrom
that you think can reasonably be shown to lead to the
conclusion “therefore, imagination has the power to have
originated the idea/concept of God and has, in fact, been
shown to have originated of the idea/concept of God”.

I saw plenty in the references I checked that reinforce
my position on the matter.

Before getting any deeper into that matter, if that is
where you wish to go, I think you need to first resolve
the ambiguous answers you gave to those questions.

With respect to one aspect of my argument, I wrote:

> I (RLBaty) don’t believe it has true premises.

 

In your opening message here, you wrote:

> I (joobz) wish to have this thread as an
> opportunity for RLBaty to defend his statement…

 

You then proposed the following asking:

> Why do you (RLBaty) believe the premises to be false?

 

In answer to the fundamental questions that would
establish a context that would make my opinion on that
relevant, you seemed to hedge a bit, stating:

> I (joobz) will answer your questions as
> a means of facilitating discussion.

 

and

> I (joobz) answered in the affirmative with
> this question as I believe it will help
> facilitate discussion.

 

I am not looking for answers to the questions from you.
I am looking for YOUR answers to the questions; YOUR position.

The extent to which YOUR answers to the questions, YOUR
position on the questions, might facilitate the discussion
has yet to be determined.

I hope that you can provide YOUR answers to the questions
so that the discussion of my argument and the claims I
make for it might be facilitated.

If you cannot provide YOUR “yes” or “no” answers to the
questions, then we will need to discuss your problems with
the question(s) in order to faciilitate the discussion and
establish a context whereby my opinion about the truth of
the premises will be relevant.

So, let’s try again to get past these fundamental, preliminary
matters.

Please provide YOUR “yes” or “no” answer indicating YOUR
position on the following:

Is my argument so constructed that if its
premises are true its conclusion will follow
as true therefrom?

– RLBaty – Yes
– Joobz – ???

Do atheists believe the premises of my
argument to be true?

– RLBaty – Yes
– Joobz – ???

Is the major premise of my argument true?

– RLBaty – No
– Joobz – ???

Is the minor premise of my argument true?

– RLBaty – No
– Joobz – ???

If we get past that, the following two points are
for discussion:

Why do atheists believe the premises to
be true?

Why doesn’t RLBaty believe the premises to
be true?

—————————————————–

(14)

From: Thomas Dziubla, Ph.D. (aka “joobz”)
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2011
Time: 6:09 PM MT

Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,341

Originally Posted by RLBaty

> I saw nothing in your comments about
> Pareidolia, “god spots” or moral
> thinking to support the proposition
> that imagination is capable of
> originating the idea/concept of God
> and that it has been shown to have
> originated the idea/concept of God.

 

A couple points:

1.)You will need to provide a little more explanation
than this. Right now, you are only offering a position
of incredulity and not much can be done to reply. I
would be happy to explain better once I know why you
do not accept the argument.

2.) I only seek to demonstrate that idea/concept of
God Could have, and very likely, was originated by
imagination. I do not attempt to claim definitively
that it did. Similarly, I do not claim to be able to
demonstrate the exact tribes which had split off from
protohumans and became humans. But rather accept
that the data obtained support that this did indeed
happen. I am, on both accounts, willing to adjust this
opinion based upon new data.

As for Research which supports my position, we can
start with:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19794914
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19784372

and most interestingly

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21533.short

Originally Posted by RLBaty

> Did you intend to concede my point that
> atheists, in believing the premises to
> be true, believe beyond the limits of the
> evidence?

 

This is a new argument being added to the mix(it is
difficult to concede a point you haven’t made yet,
don’t you agree?).

Let’s first address your issues with my claim of a
mental basis for god.

You need to provide a more concrete explanation as
to why you do not accept the
data.

But, for sake of argument, NO.

I do not concede that point as it is false.

If you can show that god could have never been
conceived by imagination (including, invention or
tricks of the mind), than the existence of the
concept of god in early man would be interesting
evidence supporting the existence of god.*

However, if god could be invented/imagined by early
man, one can not use the popularity/persistence of
god belief (even in early man) as evidence for god’s
existence.

In the end, non-existence is the default position.

The person making the positive (god is) claim is the
one who must demonstrate god exists.

Atheism is not a belief system like theism.

*I figured you were heading in this direction of
“atheism is built upon beliefs”. This is why I have
been focusing the debate upon the assumption you
made regarding what early man was/wasn’t capable of.
This is why it is important for you to prove me wrong
about early man’s ability.

Originally Posted by RLBaty

> I saw plenty in the references I checked
> that reinforce my position on the matter.

 

Then you have a reason for doubting my claim.

Please present this argument.

Originally Posted by RLBaty

> With respect to one aspect of my argument, I wrote:
>
> I (RLBaty) don’t believe it has true premises.
>
>In your opening message here, you wrote:
>
>> I (joobz) wish to have this thread as an
>> opportunity for RLBaty to defend his statement…
>
> You then proposed the following asking:
>
>> Why do you (RLBaty) believe the
>> premises to be false?
>
> In answer to the fundamental questions
> that would establish a context that would
> make my opinion on that relevant, you
> seemed to hedge a bit, stating:

 

Yes, I am hedging as I do not think the argument
is as all encompassing as you present.

However, I am willing, for the sake of argument,
accept the argument on your grounds to facilitate
discussion.

The answers I gave were exactly what was deserved
for discussion.

If you wish to know why, read the posts by others
who have made the points clear.

————————————————–

(15)

From: RLBaty
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2011
Time: 7:46 PM MT

Joobz,

Your implication that the discussion may be facilitated
best if we role-play sounds good to me.

Let’s give that a try.

That way we won’t have to get personal. The discussion
will be as if between an anonymous theist and an
anonymous atheist.

You can play the atheist, and I’ll play the theist.

I’ll set it up as follows:

Argument

Major Premise:

> IF man was able to originate the idea/concept of
> God through the power of imagination, as opposed
> to reason and/or revelation, THEN man did originate
> the idea/concept of God through the power of
> imagination.

 

Minor Premise:

> Man was able to originate the idea/concept of God
> through the power of imagination, as opposed to
> reason and/or revelation.

 

Conclusion:

> Man did originate the idea/concept of God through
> the power of imagination.

 

Positions

(1)

Is the argument so constructed that if its
premises are true its conclusion will follow
as true therefrom?

– Theist – Yes
– Atheist – Yes

(2)

Does the atheist believe the premises of the
argument to be true?

– Theist – Yes
– Atheist – Yes

(3)

Is the major premise of the argument true?

– Theist – No
– Atheist – Yes

(4)

Is the minor premise of the argument true?

– Theist – No
– Atheist – Yes

(5)

Why does the atheist believe the premises to
be true?

– To be discussed

(6)

Why doesn’t the theist believe the premises to
be true?

– To be discussed

Do you agree, joobz?

If so, we can build up from there as to the specific
points to further pursue, step by reasonable step.

Since positions #1 and #2 are agreed, position #3
would seem to be the next reasonable “step” to take
up for discussion and in conjunction with
consideration of #5 & #6.

Also, position #3 is, perhaps, the easiest of the
disputed/disputable issues to deal with. In order
to attempt to resolve the issue(s) as to the major
premise, we don’t have to quibble over references,
interpretations of technical scientific data, and
when the evidence gives way to imaginative claims
about what might be and might have been.

————————————————–

(16)

From: Thomas Dziubla, Ph.D. (aka “joobz”)
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2011
Time: 8:03 PM MT

RLBaty,

I’ll do you one step further:

(1)

Is the argument so constructed that if its
premises are true its conclusion will follow
as true therefrom?

– joobz: Yes

(2)

Does the atheist believe the premises of the
argument to be true?

– Joobz Yes

(3)

Is the major premise of the argument true?

– Joobz – Yes

(4)

Is the minor premise of the argument true?

– Joobz – Yes

So now:

Let’s get back to our discussion:

Originally Posted by RLBaty

> I saw nothing in your comments about
> Pareidolia, “god spots” or moral thinking
> to support the proposition that imagination
> is capable of originating the idea/concept
> of God and that it has been shown to have
> originated the idea/concept of God.

 

A couple points:

1.)You will need to provide a little more explanation
than this. Right now, you are only offering a position
of incredulity and not much can be done to reply. I
would be happy to explain better once I know why you
do not accept the argument.

2.) I only seek to demonstrate that idea/concept of
God Could have, and very likely, was originated by
imagination. I do not attempt to claim definitively
that it did. Similarly, I do not claim to be able to
demonstrate the exact tribes which had split off from
protohumans and became humans. But rather accept
that the data obtained support that this did indeed
happen. I am, on both accounts, willing to adjust this
opinion based upon new data.

As for Research which supports my position, we can
start with:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19794914
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19784372

and most interestingly

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21533.short

Please respond to this.

——————————————————-

(17)

From: RLBaty
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2011
Time: 8:30 PM MT

Originally Posted by joobz

> Please respond to this.

 

What, did you think I might have run off?

(We might have negotiated a mutually agreeable and
proper, reasonable, step by step order of business,
but I had no one with which to negotiate such reasonable
details.)

Joobz,

OK, I’ll reset the stage as shown below; consistent with
your latest message.

Just let me know whether you want the answers and comments
to be treated as role-playing for purposes of the discussion
or if you want your answers and comments to reflect your
position and my answers and comments to reflect my
position.

The set up:

Argument

Major Premise:

> IF man was able to originate the idea/concept of
> God through the power of imagination, as opposed
> to reason and/or revelation, THEN man did originate
> the idea/concept of God through the power of
> imagination.

 

Minor Premise:

> Man was able to originate the idea/concept of God
> through the power of imagination, as opposed to
> reason and/or revelation.

 

Conclusion:

> Man did originate the idea/concept of God through
> the power of imagination.

 

Positions

(1)

Is the argument so constructed that if its
premises are true its conclusion will follow
as true therefrom?

– RLBaty – Yes
– Joobz – Yes

(2)

Does the atheist believe the premises of the
argument to be true?

– RLBaty – Yes
– Joobz – Yes

(3)

Is the major premise of the argument true?

– RLBaty – No
– Joobz – Yes

(4)

Is the minor premise of the argument true?

– RLBaty – No
– Joobz – Yes

(5)

Why does the atheist believe the premises to
be true?

– To be discussed

(6)

Why doesn’t the theist believe the premises to
be true?

– To be discussed

I took a look at your references.

I didn’t see anything there that indicated any effort
to even try to resolve the origin question regarding
the idea/concept of God. They all seemed to start with
the idea/concept of God/religion already existing.

Similarly, as I noted earlier, your own comments in
the earlier post indicate that you are not committed
to affirming that there is empirical evidence, with
requisite “argument”, that reasonably leads to the
conclusion that “therefore, imagination has/had the
ability to originate the idea/concept of God”.

As I suggested in my earlier message, we need not
quibble about that at this point.

Position #3 above is the next reasonable step in the
discussion.

Your concerns relate to Position #4.

Position #4, for purposes of this discussion, is not
relevant unless the argument is valid and the major
premise is true.

Since we agree on the validity issue, in reality or
in role-playing, the next reasonable step is to take
up the major premise issue.

Agree?

——————————————————

(18)

From: Thomas Dziubla, Ph.D. (aka “joobz”)
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2011
Time: 8:44 PM MT

RLBaty,

This is a conversation of equals not of one leading
the other.

I’ve been more than reasonable with my attempts at
discussing with you.

I’ve agreed to your premises and argument.

I’ve already presented WHY I feel the premises are
valid.

This was my Post #8.

I see no reason to rehash points already covered.

You have twice offered only two arguments from incredulity
as an attempt to rebuff my position. As my argument is
based upon evidence,

A simple denial is not sufficient to refute my position.

Let’s go forward to figure out what parts of my argument
you refute. Let’s start with terms:

1.) Do you understand the concept of Pareidolia?

2.) Do you understand the organic relationship between
spiritual experiences and the mind?

3.) Do you understand the concept of agency as it applies
to cognitive social models?

———————————————————-

(19)

From: RLBaty
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2011
Time: 9:09 PM MT

Originally Posted by joobz

> RLBaty,
>
> You have twice offered only two arguments
> from incredulity as an attempt to rebuff
> my position.
>
> As my argument is based upon evidence, a
> simple denial is not sufficient to refute
> my position.
>
> Let’s go forward…

 

Do you understand what the “argument from incredulity”
is about?

You and yours have been having quite a fun time in
falsely accusing me of making such arguments.

Why don’t we move forward and see if we can’t put
that to rest.

You offer your explanation for what an “argument from
incredulity” is and where I have made such an argument,
and I’ll respond accepting your accusation or
offering a rebuttal.

If you have an argument, based on the evidence, then
give it instead of arguing about having such a thing;
preferably analogous to my own argument in the
following form:

> If p, then q, imagination has the power to
> have originated the idea/concept of God.

> P.

> Therefore, q, imagination has the power to
> have originated the idea/concept of God.

 

I dispute one or more of your other claims, but I’m not
here to quibble about all of the details.

As far as I am concerned, you are NOT being reasonable
in insisting we ignore first presenting the discussion
of our relative positions regarding the major premise;
without which the minor premise, that you are trying to
run ahead and discuss, is not relevant.

Also, did you say whether you were going to want us to
role-play or argue from our personal positions regarding
these important public issues?

——————————————————–

(20)

From: Thomas Dziubla, Ph.D. (aka “joobz”)
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2011
Time: 9:13 PM MT

Join Date: August 2006
Posts: 15,345

RLBaty,

Let’s go forward to figure out what parts of my argument
you refute.

Let’s start with terms:

1.) Do you understand the concept of Pareidolia?

2.) Do you understand the organic relationship between
spiritual experiences and the mind?

3.) Do you understand the concept of agency as it applies
to cognitive social models?

I’ve presented the beginning of some of the evidence.

You have only dismissed it without actually explaining why.

———————————————————–

(21)

From: RLBaty
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2011
Time: 9:21 PM MT

Originally Posted by joobz

> RLBaty,
>
> I’ve presented the beginning of some
> of the evidence.
>
> You have only dismissed it without
> actually explaining why.

 

That’s fine, but premature for introducing in this discussion;
for reasons I have repeatedly explained.

Save your evidence until you have it all together.

I’ve just asked for the “argument”, formulated to be analogous
to my own.

I’ll consider it, but it is not going to be relevant unless we
first provide the context with the discussion of your position,
or role-play, and my position, or role-play, regarding the major
premise.

Are you going to deal with the major premise, the reasonable
next step?

Have you decided to withdraw your “argument from incredulity”
claim against me?

————————————————————–

(22)

From: Thomas Dziubla, Ph.D.
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2011
Time: 9:23 PM MT

Join Date: August 2006
Posts: 15,346

Originally Posted by RLBaty

> Are you going to deal with the major premise

 

See Post 8.

Let’s go forward to figure out what parts of my
argument you refute. Let’s start with terms:

1.) Do you understand the concept of Pareidolia?

2.) Do you understand the organic relationship
between spiritual experiences and the mind?

3.) Do you understand the concept of agency as
it applies to cognitive social models?

ETA:

I am not interested in being taken down diversionary
points.

The argument from incredulity claim stands, but to
discuss this at this time is not important.

——————————————————

(23)

From: RLBaty
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2011
Time: 9:40 PM MT

Originally Posted by joobz

> See Post 8.
>
> I am not interested in being taken
> down diversionary points.
>
> The argument from incredulity claim stands,
> but to discuss this at this time is not
> important.

 

I saw post #8, and it does not have the “argument”
you seem to think it does.

If you continue to think otherwise, then put it into
the following format so that I can more easily
recognize it:

> If p, then q, imagination has/had the power
> to originate the idea/concept of God.

> P.

> Therefore q, imagination has/had the power
> to originate the idea/concept of God.

 

However, remember the diversion you are pursuing.

Without dealing with the major premise, that does
not require we resolve your imagination claim, your
imagination claim “is not important at this time”.

The discussion was designed to consider my argument
and the claims I made for it. There is a reasonable
way to do that, and you have set off on an
unreasonable course (e.g., trying to jump to the
minor premise before dealing with the major premise).

If you aren’t going to deal with my argument and the
claims I have made for it, reasonably, step by step,
that’s fine. Just keep me advised of any continuing
interest you have in producing such a discussion.

—————————————————–

(24)

From: Thomas Dziubla, Ph.D. (aka “joobz”)
Date: Thursday, May 26, 2011
Time: 10:10 PM MT

Originally Posted by RLBaty

> I saw post #8, and it does not
> have the “argument” you seem to
> think it does.

 

I disagree. See below

Originally Posted by joobz

> Why do atheists believe the
> premises to be true?
>
> I answered in the affirmative with this
> question as I believe it will help
> facilitate discussion. Note that I am
> using imagination in the loosest possible
> sense of the term, that god is a product
> solely of the mind.
>
> Our mental capacity is consistent with
> humans from at least 100,000 years ago.
> As such observations of modern human
> capacity is likely to have existed in
> humans 100,000 years ago.
>
> Briefly, The human cognitive modelling
> system exists to improve social interactions.
> This system allows for us to construct
> mental models of others to predict behaviors
> and know how our behavior will/can adjust
> their behavior. The heart of this model is
> the ability to assign agency (intent of
> action) to another human. This system has
> the unfortunate side effect of assigning
> agency to things that are not developed by
> a mind (e.g., weather patterns) and a
> supernatural mind begins to emerge as an
> explanation for these things.
>
> In other words, the evolving concept of god
> that has emerged in humans is effectively
> a form of Pareidolia.
>
> There is additional bits of evidence that
> are supportive to this point
>
> 1. such as the recorded evidence of a
> “God spot” in the brain, which when
> stimulated can recreate sensations of
> supernatural splendor.
>
> 2. the fact that people use the same
> self-model to decide their moral actions
> and the moral actions god would want them
> to do (instead of another moral action site).
>
> We will leave it there for now.

 

Originally Posted by RLBaty

> If you continue to think otherwise, then
> put it into the following format so that
> I can more easily recognize it:
>
> You’ve insisted that I answer yes/no to
> your argument points.
>
> You’ve insisted upon 1 and only 1 approach
> to the conversation.

 

You are now insisting upon a specific
format for my posts.

What’s next?

Will you insist upon specific arguments
for me to make?

You are giving the impression
that you are more interested in having me
follow a script rather than having a debate.

Hopefully this isn’t the case.

So, to move forward, let’s see which aspects of
my argument (which you have dismissed) do you not
accept or understand?

1.) Do you understand the concept of Pareidolia?

2.) Do you understand the organic relationship
between spiritual experiences and the mind?

3.) Do you understand the concept of agency as
it applies to cognitive social models?

————————————————-

(25)

From: RLBaty
Date: Friday, May 27, 2011
Time: 5:39 PM MT

Originally Posted by joobz

> I disagree.
>
> You’ve insisted that…
>
> You’ve insisted upon…
>
> You are now insisting upon…
>
> What’s next?
>
> Will you insist upon…
>
> You are giving the impression that…
>
> So, to move forward, let’s see…

 

Joobz,

That we have a disagreement regarding whether or
not the authorities have published any credible
research claiming to have established that imagination
is capable of having originated the idea/concept of
God and that it did originate the idea/concept of God
is noted and is not unexpected.

Should we reach that issue after establishing the
context for its relevance regarding my argument and
the claims I make for it, we will be able to fuss
about the details which support my position on that.

I have not “dismissed” your alleged argument.

I have noted that you did not actually present an
“argument” having the reasonable conclusion that

> “therefore, imagination has/had the power
> to originate the idea/concept of God”.

 

Letting you know that what you presented did not
impress me as containing any such argument is not,
as you falsely claim, a fallacous “argument of
incredulity”.

That you refuse to deal with your problem with
understanding the “argument of incredulity” and your
claim against me is a substantive matter that provides
additional context regarding the prospects of helping
you with your problems in what is a rather simple
exercise regarding a fundamental and important public
issue regarding atheism and atheists.

If it be the case that you decide to repent of your
present course and begin to deal reasonably with me
and this discussion, we will eventually find out who
understands what and accepts what as to pareidolia,
organic relationships between spiritual experiences
and the mind, and the concept of agency as it applies
to cognitive social models and how such relates to this
discussion.

You have been rather insistent regarding your own
interests, or in your role-playing, while appearing to
be complaining about my insistence that the
discussion proceed reasonably, step by reasonable step
with regard to my argument and the claims I make for it.

You also are leaving impressions, but I need not engage
in a discussion further regarding such things.

Had we first negotiated as to how the discussion might
be engaged and how moderators might be called upon to
resolve any dispute between us regarding such
matters, we could have the moderators decide the issue.

It looks like, if the discussion is going to proceed,
we will have to negotiate a course or agree to disagree
and agree to shake keyboard hands and terminate
the discussion.

Here’s how I see where we are and how I propose we proceed.

Where we are at:

(1)

You and I have agreed that my argument is so constructed
that if its premises are true the conclusion will follow
as true therefrom.

(2)

You and I have agreed that at least one atheist, you,
believes the major premise to be true.

(3)

You and I have agreed that at least one theist, me, believes
the major premise to be false.

(4)

You affirm the truth of the major premise.

(5)

I deny the truth of the major premise.

How we might proceed:

(1)

You discuss why you believe the major premise,
a mixed hypothetical statement, is true.

(2)

I discuss, in reply, why I do not accept your
claims for the truth of the major premise and
offer my rebuttal discussing why I believe it
to be false (unless you convince me otherwise
with your affirmative claims).

(3)

You acknowledge your understanding that the
truth of the major premise considers a world
in which the minor premise is true without
having to establish the truth of the minor
premise.

(4)

Upon the successful completion of the
discussion of the major premise, a discussion
of the truth of the minor premise will be
ripe for consideration.

I’ll look forward to working with you to complete the
production of this little chat you proposed, step by
reasonable step.

—————————————————–

(26)

From: Thomas Dziubla, Ph.D. (aka “joobz”)
Date: Friday, May 27, 2011
Time: 5:51 PM MT

RLBaty,

You are discussing style, where I am focused on the
substance. further, I will not be distracted by your
other attempts at diverting the argument.

As Far as I, and I am certain everyone else who has
read this argument, can tell, we are at step two of
your “how we proceed”. I’ve made my argument for why
the early humans were capable of inventing god and
that this invention is nearly predictable based upon
human congitive social modeling and pareidolia.

You have yet to refute this argument. Simply stating
“You do not accept it.” or “It is unconvincing” without
actually saying why is not good enough and exposes
a weakness of your position. This is merely an application
of the argument from incredulity. If you have more than
this, present it. If not, you must accept that early man
could have, indeed, invented the concept of god.

ETA:

I am comfortable with my posts and with what I have
presented. My insistence that you actually address my
argument isn’t unfair or unreasonable. Indeed, I
have been quite accommodating with the hoops you have
asked me to jump through.

Now it is time for you to jump through one of mine.

My hoop is simple. actually refute or accept my argument
and the evidence supporting it. That’s it.

ETA 2:

I’ve noticed the color commentary that you have added
to the posts in your webpage. Simply pounding your
chest and claiming I am failing doesn’t actually
make it so. Such behavior doesn’t help your cause.

————————

(27)

From: RLBaty
Date: Friday, May 27, 2011
Time: 6:06 PM MT

Originally Posted by joobz

> You are discussing style, where I am
> focused on the substance. further, I
> will not be distracted by your other
> attempts at diverting the argument.
>
> As Far as I, and I am certain everyone
> else who has read this argument, can tell,
> we are at step two of your “how we proceed”.
> I’ve made my argument for why the early
> humans were capable of inventing god and
> that this invention is nearly predictable
> based upon human congitive social modeling
> and pareidolia.
>
> You have yet to refute this argument. Simply
> stating “You do not accept it.” or “It is
> unconvincing” without actually saying why
> is not good enough and exposes a weakness of
> your position. This is merely an application
> of the argument from incredulity. If you have
> more than this, present it. If not, you must
> accept that early man could have, indeed,
> invented the concept of god.

 

Actually, you are not dealing reasonably regarding
what should be the substance of the discussion.

An analogy might be made between style and validity.
No style, no validity…no substance.

I will not be distracted by your attempts to divert
attention from the requisite style; a reasonable step
by step procession in the discussion, if it is to
continue.

As I anticipated, you seem NOT to understand that the
major premise is a mixed hypothetical statement and
determining its truth is not dependent upon the truth
of the minor premise.

Also, as I previously noted, you reaffirm your
misunderstanding of the “argument of incredulity” and
your charge against me.

That, perhaps, may need to be worked out before attempting
to resolve how the discussion might otherwise proceed.

Alternatively, if you will simply refrain from attempting
to use such an accusation against me, we can get on with
the “substance” of the discussion; step by reasonable step.

Are you, joobz, prepared to now discuss why you believe
the major premise to be true and for me to respond thereto?

If so, get on with the substance of your claim for the
truth of the major premise.

ETA:

Joobz, I notice you edited your message and added some
things. I notice the color commentary from your folks
here, and I find your comments regarding my website,
in that context, to be rather hypocritical. If you wish
to comment on such things, deal with the interlopers here.

———————————————————–

(28)

From: Thomas Dziubla, Ph.D. (aka “joobz”)
Date: Friday, May 27, 2011
Time: 6:22 PM MT

Originally Posted by RLBaty

> If so, get on with the substance of
> your claim for the truth of the major
> premise.

 

I’ve reread it and see that your exact wording of the major
premise is affirming the consequent.

It’s a rather silly point, but I’m willing to concede that
IT is false.

Hopefully we can now get to the more interesting point.

Originally Posted by RLBaty

> ETA: Joobz, I notice you edited your message
> and added some things. I notice the color
> commentary from your folks here, and I find
> your comments regarding my website, in that
> context, to be rather hypocritical. If you
> wish to comment on such things, deal with
> the interlopers here.

 

I have no control over others.
I only control my own behavior.
You have the same capacity.

————————————————————

(29)

From: RLBaty
Date: Friday, May 27, 2011
Time: 6:43 PM MT

Originally Posted by joobz

> I’ve reread it and see that your exact
> wording of the major premise is affirming
> the consequent.
>
> It’s a rather silly point, but I’m willing
> to concede that IT is false.
>
> Hopefully we can now get to the more
> interesting point.
>
> I have no control over others.
>
> I only control my own behavior.
>
> You have the same capacity.

 

Thanks for that demonstration.

Besides demonstrating a lack of understanding of the
mixed hypothetical major premise, you demonstrate a
lack of understanding of the modus ponens form.

Perhaps it was just a blunder; one among many you
have committed in this discussin and with which I
have been quite accommodating.

My argument, as opposed to the major premise,
reflects the affirmation of the “antecedent”,
as is the “style” of modus ponens.

Neither my argument or the major premise affirms
the consequent as your propose.

If you join with me, in reality or your role playing,
in rejecting the major premise, the rest does not matter.

I’ll accept your concession, in reality or as a role
play for an atheist, that the major premise is false.

That is sufficient to conclude the discussion of my
argument and the claims I make for it; as between you
and me.

The minor premise is irrelevant if the major premise
is false.

The argument fails if the major premise is false.

You agree it is false.
I agree it is false.

The argument fails.

If you want to quibble about the minor premise, you
don’t need me; I prefer discussing matters that have
“substance”.

Standing alone, the minor premise has no “substance”.

Of course, if you would like to start over, and be
more reasonable in trying to avoid your blunders, I
may be able to accommodate you in a third attempt!

———————————-

(30)

From: Thomas Dziubla, Ph.D. (aka “joobz”)
Date: Friday, May 27, 2011
Time: 06:52 PM MT

Join Date: August 2006
Posts: 15,352

Originally Posted by RLBaty

> Thanks for that demonstration. Besides
> demonstrating a lack of understanding
> of the mixed hypothetical major premise,
> you demonstrate a lack of understanding
> of the modus ponens form.
>
> Yup. Style over substance.
>
> You created a strawman, and I played your game.

 

Originally Posted by RLBaty

> If you want to quibble about the minor premise,
> you don’t need me; I prefer discussing matters
> that have “substance”. .

 

You have run away from an honest discussion.

Originally Posted by RLBaty

> The argument fails.

 

It was yours to fail. My posts stand.

My arguments are there.

The charade I participated in was nothing more than
a means for me to expose the hollowness of the
strawman you concocted.

ETA:

Let’s remember what my real argument was:

[quote]

Originally Posted by joobz

> A couple points:
>
> 1.)You will need to provide a little more
> explanation than this. Right now, you are
> only offering a position of incredulity
> and not much can be done to reply. I would
> be happy to explain better once I know why
> you do not accept the argument.
>
> 2.) I only seek to demonstrate that idea/concept
> of God Could have, and very likely, was originated
> by imagination. I do not attempt to claim definitively
> that it did. Similarly, I do not claim to be able
> to demonstrate the exact tribes which had split off
> from protohumans and became humans. But rather accept
> that the data obtained support that this did indeed
> happen. I am, on both accounts, willing to adjust
> this opinion based upon new data.

 

——————————————————-

(31)

From: RLBaty
Date: Friday, May 27, 2011
Time: 7:01 PM MT

Originally Posted by joobz

> Yup. Style over substance.
> You created a strawman, and I played your game.
>
> You have run away from an honest discussion.
>
> It was yours to fail. My posts stand.
>
> My arguments are there.
>
> The charade I participated in was nothing
> more than a means for me to expose the
> hollowness of the strawman you concocted.

 

Your charade is noted, but your conclusions regarding
your antics are false and demonstrably so.

I understand why you may feel the need to disagree.

The “style” is what guarantees the “substance” in such
exercises.

You were the “strawman”, joobz, and you easily failed
the exercise.

I have not runaway. You know where to find me if you
should wish to work out the details for a 3rd attempt.

My argument has not failed as to its utility in dealing
with the inference of atheism/atheists and the claims I
have made for it.

Why the argument fails helps, as far as the popular public
debate regarding the merits of atheism, one understand, on
a very fundamental level, why atheism has, to date, failed
to establish anything more than that,

> for all atheists know, God does exist.

 

———————————————

(32)

From: Thomas Dziubla, Ph.D. (aka “joobz”)
Date: Friday, May 27, 2011
Time: 7:08 PM MT

Originally Posted by RLBaty

> I have not runaway.

 

Then prove it by addressing my actual argument that
I presented.

I moved along your script solely on the grounds that
I took you at your word and you would address the
argument I was actually making.

Originally Posted by RLBaty

> for all atheists know, God does exist.

 

and that the world is 6000 years old….

————————

(33)

From: RLBaty
Date: Friday, May 27, 2011
Time: 7:15 PM MT

Originally Posted by joobz

> Then…

 

If you wish to, in good faith, negotiate for a more
reasonable discussion of my argument and the claims
I make for it (including, where appropriate, your thing
about mind studies), you are welcome to come around my
place and do so.

You can even show a little good faith by cutting and
pasting such exercise from my place to here.

Been here, done that!

See archives here for details.

Thanks to all for your contributions to the completion
of the exercise.

————————————————————
————————————————————

Debate commentary from another JREF member & skeptic/atheist

From: I Am The Scum
Date: Friday, May 27, 2011
Time: 8:46 PM MT

Affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy(WP), meaning it
cannot apply to a single premise.

RLBaty’s argument is a valid modus ponens(WP) argument.

And to be fair Joobz (Thomas Dziubla, Ph.D.), you haven’t
presented a formal argument.

You (Thomas Dziubla, Ph.D.) have pointed towards some
possibility towards God being imagined, and I agree, but you
keep referring to your argument when you haven’t made one.

————————————————————-
————————————————————-

Response from Thomas Dziubla, Ph.D. to the above commentary

From: Thomas Dziubla, Ph.D. (aka “joobz”)
Date: Friday, May 27, 2011
Time: 8:58 PM MT

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

> Affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy(WP),
> meaning it cannot apply to a single premise.
>
> RLBaty’s argument is a valid modus ponensWP argument.
>
> And to be fair Joobz, you haven’t presented a formal
> argument.
>
> You have pointed towards some possibility towards
> God being imagined, and I agree, but you keep
> referring to your argument when you haven’t made
> one.

 

My error.

——————————————————-
——————————————————-

On the conclusion of the above debate

From: Thomas Dziubla, Ph.D. (aka “joobz”)
Date: Saturday, May 28, 2011
Time: 12:37 PM MT

I am happy to have the record stand.

I am, as always, willing to learn from
my mistakes.

——————————————————–
——————————————————–

Permission granted by Thomas Dziubla, Ph.D.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=7192735&highlight=paste#post7192735

From: Thomas Dziubla, Ph.D. (aka “joobz”)
Date: May 17, 2011
Time: 11:33 AM MT

If you wish to use it (Maury_and_Baty list)
as a repository of the discussion, that’s
fine by me.

——————————————————–
——————————————————–

Thomas Dziubla, Ph.D. on his identity

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=7232050#post7232050

Message #172

From: Thomas Dziubla, Ph.D. (aka “joobz”)
Date: Sunday, May 29, 2011
Time: 6:07 AM MT
Join Date: August 2006
Posts: 15,370

My identity here isn’t a secret.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=208249&page=9

Message #601

From: Thomas Dziubla, Ph.D. (aka “joobz”)
Date: Monday, May 16, 2011
Time: 12:09 PM MT
Join Date: August 2006
Posts: 15,364

Originally Posted by RLBaty

> As far as I can tell, you are NOT
> “out” here. Perhaps you can refer
> me to the post or other information
> here where you are “out”.

 

It isn’t hard to determine my identify
on this website.

———————————————-
———————————————-

Friend of Thomas Dziubla, Ph.D. identifies him.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6492651&highlight=joobz#post6492651

Message #756

From: Foster Zygote
Date: October 28, 2010
Time: 8:05 PM MT

I must defer to Joobz.

He has a Ph.D in ChemE and his
research involves cellular biology.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62835

(excerpts from various archived messages)

From: Foster Zygote

I’ll send a link of this thread
to my best friend.

He’s a professor at the University
of Kentucky and his areas of research,
according to the faculty listing, are…

I got an email from my friend.

> That’s the best I can do for now.
> Hope it helps the JREF crowd.
> I feel like I have a tough crowd
> to live up to and don’t want to
> let them down.
>
> Love
> Tom

 

I don’t think Tom will mind if I
identify him as Dr. Thomas Dziubla
at the University of Kentucky.

The above should give you some powerful
ammunition in your debate.

Tom is a man of the highest integrity
who stands by his word. If he wrote it
you are certainly welcome to quote him.
He’s about the nicest, most easy going
guy you could meet…

———————————————–
———————————————–


Comments

Dziubla v. Baty – Atheism/Imagination — 5 Comments

  1. That was amazing. You and “I Am The Scum” got him to say, “My error,” and “I am, as always, willing to learn from my mistakes.”

    He also said, “Could have, and very likely, was originated by imagination.” Is this a fallacy of prejudice? He claims “very likely” without quantifying or proving the probability he asserts.

      • You seem to be an expert on logic. I just learned about “fallacy of prejudice” recently. I was wondering if he committed a fallacy earlier in the conversation. Would “very likely” be an informal fallacy that shows bias? Because then Christianity would be “very UNlikely” to be the revealed truth in his mind. I’m a Christian and was wondering if you could teach me about logic.

        • @ Guest45
          .
          I’m no where near an expert.
          .
          I like Copi’s “Introduction to Logic”, and beyond that
          formal logical studies twist my mind into a knot.
          .
          I tend to try and stick with the basics.
          .
          Maybe Dziubla committed the “fallacy of prejudice”.
          Maybe not.
          .
          One would have to look at how one might define that
          fallacy and then deal with what Dziubla had to say
          about the matter under consideration.
          .
          It’s been awhile since I have had occasion to delve
          into the technical details of my discussion with Dziubla
          or the Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise which has
          developed and is presented elsewhere on this site at:
          .
          See: http://kehvrlb.com/atheism-101-critical-thinking-exercise
          .
          Also, over the years I have tended to try and not get into
          private discussions about such things, and less and less with
          anonymous sorts publicly or privately.
          .
          I might also note that most of what little I know about logic
          I learned studying the simple, modus ponens form of argument
          which I have come to much respect and prefer for its simplicity.
          It also seems to have confounded, in its application, many of
          my adversaries; especially in the context of my “Goliath of GRAS”
          argument regarding “Young-earth Creationism”.
          .

Leave a Reply