Belief vs Disbelief

[z8000783]

As I've said before, evidence that human logic could detect a god, if one did exist, is very weak to non-existent.

I think I missed that last time, could you outline your reasoning again please?

Thank you for your question, and the way you put it.

My reasoning is as follows.

If I scan the sky with a pair of binoculars, and find no evidence of galaxies, it doesn't automatically follow that galaxies don't exist.

In order to state that this lack of evidence points to a conclusion that galaxies don't exist, I need to first establish that my binoculars would be able to find galaxies if they did exist.

God is proposed to be the biggest intelligent entity of all, capable of creating the universe etc. That is the premise being put forward for examination.

Can science currently find even one single cell organism (let alone intelligence) ANYWHERE beyond earth? No.

We reason that life is almost surely out there somewhere, given the inconceivably large area of the universe, but we can't find it, yet.

If we can't find even a single cell organism beyond earth, upon what basis do we declare science currently capable of generating useful data regarding the god premise?

And the "God premiss" is the key to this conundrum it seems to me.

In order to examine a premise we must first know what it is. So when someone comes here and proclaims “God Exists” often the first question is “Which one?” This is because it impossible to proceed further until the person making the proposal has provided some characteristics of their deity for us to examine.

You are quire right, in that the God often suggested does exist outside of our Universe and so therefore cannot be detected, in the same way that it would be difficult for us to observe 11-dimensional beings. However theists of all flavours never seem shy of telling all about their own particular deity. Invariably this involves their God interacting with Human Beings or the Earth in some way. Once this is accepted then evidence of that interference should be detectable, scientifically or even simply by using rational deduction.

For example, Muslims claim that the Angel Jebreal literally dictated the Quran to Mohammed over a number of years. This claim will have certain repercussions depending on whether it is true or not, and they would certainly be examinable. So whilst Allah himself may not be detectable directly, the effects of his presence or otherwise certainly will be depending on what he does, according to Muslims of course.

In summary, the arguments here are not about the existence of God per se but about the claims made by those who propose such an existence. If they make no claim other than “God Exists” then there is nothing further to discuss for the reason you outlined. Fortunately or unfortunately that never seems to be the case.

John

[RaspK]

Belief vs Disbelief is a digital state. You either believe or you do not.

Somebody claims I'm wearing a green shirt.

You don't know who I am, or where I live, or how to get to my house, or how to make me come to the door.

So, do you believe I'm wearing a green shirt, or not?

Yes?

Or no?

Pick one. Just one. No other options are allowed!

Is this absurd? Pick only this one. Yes!

Already refuted, despite your insistence to the contrary: not believing that you wear a green shirt is not the same as believing you don't wear a green shirt. It's a false dichotomy, and you are practically trolling at this point.

The same is also true of this bit, because I've also refuted it (and you insist on ignoring my refutation):

As I've said before, evidence that human logic could detect a god, if one did exist, is very weak to non-existent.

I think I missed that last time, could you outline your reasoning again please?

Thank you for your question, and the way you put it.

My reasoning is as follows.

If I scan the sky with a pair of binoculars, and find no evidence of galaxies, it doesn't automatically follow that galaxies don't exist.

In order to state that this lack of evidence points to a conclusion that galaxies don't exist, I need to first establish that my binoculars would be able to find galaxies if they did exist.

God is proposed to be the biggest intelligent entity of all, capable of creating the universe etc. That is the premise being put forward for examination.

Can science currently find even one single cell organism (let alone intelligence) ANYWHERE beyond earth? No.

We reason that life is almost surely out there somewhere, given the inconceivably large area of the universe, but we can't find it, yet.

If we can't find even a single cell organism beyond earth, upon what basis do we declare science currently capable of generating useful data regarding the god premise?

The fact that we can't currently detect a god means nothing, unless we can make a reasonable case that we could detect a god, if one did exist.

For starters, your proposed challenge fails two critical points:
1. Some deific propositions, at least, allow for evidence in several ways (e.g. noticeable statistical effects).
2. You have not shown that life should be found in our small, immediate cosmic vicinity; hence, no proof...

Your challenge has already been refuted, you've ignored the refutations more than once, and you keep asserting it!

Are some deities possible? Definitely! In the absence of evidence, lack of belief ("not thinking it true," instead of "thinking it false") in their existence is normal. It frankly amazes me that you do not realize such a basic notion.


P.S.: I've also provided an explanation regarding beliefs that you've largely ignored; congratulations!

[naturetalk]

In summary, the arguments here are not about the existence of God per se but about the claims made by those who propose such an existence.

I understand.

Personally, this is just my own preference, I'm not all that interested in investigating and debating all the various claims, which as you say, can often be in conflict with each other.

For me, the question is more general, such as...

"Is there something going on over our heads that we don't know about?"

This is not proof of anything, but I do observe that every other creature on earth is very talented at specific jobs it needs to survive in it's niche, but beyond that is generally clueless.

It seems logical to ask, are we in that same position?

[naturetalk]

Your challenge has already been refuted, you've ignored the refutations more than once, and you keep asserting it!

Evidence of RaspK typing, is not proof of refutation.

To address your real question directly....

I mean you no disrespect, but am close to deciding you aren't really interested in the question itself, but only in your own conclusions.

Thus the sensible thing seems to be to stand back, and allow you to enjoy your conclusions without interference.

However, as this post convincingly proves, I am not always sensible.

[RaspK]

In summary, the arguments here are not about the existence of God per se but about the claims made by those who propose such an existence.

I understand.

Personally, this is just my own preference, I'm not all that interested in investigating and debating all the various claims, which as you say, can often be in conflict with each other.

For me, the question is more general, such as...

"Is there something going on over our heads that we don't know about?"

This is not proof of anything, but I do observe that every other creature on earth is very talented at specific jobs it needs to survive in it's niche, but beyond that is generally clueless.

It seems logical to ask, are we in that same position?

Doesn't that line of inquiry lead to either: "We should all believe blindly." or: "Don't bother?" Think about it.

You may have not seen this, but many of us openly profess that science has limits; however, it's our only means to go about anything, along with logic, with any semblance of not swallowing tripe wholesale. Of course, it isn't really perfect (it couldn't be, anyway), and that is important to grasp just as well.

For that matter, most of us would rather not have to deal with what tripe is being peddled every bloody way.

Your challenge has already been refuted, you've ignored the refutations more than once, and you keep asserting it!

Evidence of RaspK typing, is not proof of refutation.

Actually, I've provided the same proof in the bits you have, once again, omitted.

False dichotomies; red herrings; non sequitur; et cetera...

To address your real question directly....

I mean you no disrespect, but am close to deciding you aren't really interested in the question itself, but only in your own conclusions.

Do you realize you have not once addressed my actual points, my "real question directly" whatsoever?

Thus the sensible thing seems to be to stand back, and allow you to enjoy your conclusions without interference.

However, as this post convincingly proves, I am not always sensible.

Let me tell you this: autosarcasm, after crying "wolf," cannot get you out of binds such as this you are in.

[z8000783]

In summary, the arguments here are not about the existence of God per se but about the claims made by those who propose such an existence.

I understand.

Personally, this is just my own preference, I'm not all that interested in investigating and debating all the various claims, which as you say, can often be in conflict with each other.

For me, the question is more general, such as...

"Is there something going on over our heads that we don't know about?"

LOL, well I know you are versed enough in common sense to know that if there is and we don't know about it then we don't know about it.

My view is that there is heaps of stuff going on that we are only just beginning to scratch the surface of such as the Big Bang, Quantum Theory and Relativity.

Richard Feynman once said that if you think you understand Quantum Theory then you don't understand Quantum Theory. See also RD's video Queerer than we can suppose.

This is not proof of anything, but I do observe that every other creature on earth is very talented at specific jobs it needs to survive in it's niche, but beyond that is generally clueless.

It seems logical to ask, are we in that same position?

The point is I think, that we are now on a different path to the other animals in that we are able to ask questions and get answers that appear to be verifiable, clueless though we may still be about many things.

Good luck in your search what whatever you define the Truth to be.

John

[naturetalk]

This is not proof of anything, but I do observe that every other creature on earth is very talented at specific jobs it needs to survive in it's niche, but beyond that is generally clueless. It seems logical to ask, are we in that same position?

Doesn't that line of inquiry lead to either: "We should all believe blindly." or: "Don't bother?" Think about it.

I don't believe blindly, and clearly I am here bothering.

Thus, I don't see why inquiring sincerely in to trying to understand the fact of the matter (remember that?) has to automatically lead to blind belief or disengagement. That could the choice of some though, sure.

You may have not seen this, but many of us openly profess that science has limits; however, it's our only means to go about anything, along with logic, with any semblance of not swallowing tripe wholesale.

Again, the fact that science is the best available tool does not automatically equal it's suitability for a specific job. You're jumping from one, to the next, without bothering to test your assumption.

For that matter, most of us would rather not have to deal with what tripe is being peddled every bloody way.

Then don't deal with it. What could be simpler? The fact is that most people aren't very philosophical, and don't bother themselves with any of these topics. And their life goes on.

Actually, I've provided the same proof in the bits you have, once again, omitted.

Let's clear something up. I feel no obligation to respond to every point you make. If you'd like to interpret that as a victory, go right ahead, no problem, ok with me.

Do you realize you have not once addressed my actual points, my "real question directly" whatsoever?

Your real question is, why am I not taking your points seriously. And the answer is, as stated above, because you aren't taking them seriously yourself.

You are taking conclusions, debating, and victory seriously. Which is your right of course. There's nothing wrong with that, and I'm not claiming that there is. I'm just not fully interested, that's all.

[naturetalk]

The point is I think, that we are now on a different path to the other animals in that we are able to ask questions and get answers that appear to be verifiable, clueless though we may still be about many things.

It seems the comparison to animals may be a big, and understandable, factor in how we view ourselves.

Yes, we are smarter than donkeys. A lot smarter.

But how smart are we in relation to understanding the fullness of reality? Remains to be seen. So far, it seems we won't be seeing that answer for a very long time to come.

[z8000783]

The point is I think, that we are now on a different path to the other animals in that we are able to ask questions and get answers that appear to be verifiable, clueless though we may still be about many things.

It seems the comparison to animals may be a big, and understandable, factor in how we view ourselves.

Yes, we are smarter than donkeys. A lot smarter.

But how smart are we in relation to understanding the fullness of reality? Remains to be seen. So far, it seems we won't be seeing that answer for a very long time to come.

I wouldn't put it down to simply being smart, it's more to do with concious awareness, I believe.

John

[RaspK]

This is not proof of anything, but I do observe that every other creature on earth is very talented at specific jobs it needs to survive in it's niche, but beyond that is generally clueless. It seems logical to ask, are we in that same position?

Doesn't that line of inquiry lead to either: "We should all believe blindly." or: "Don't bother?" Think about it.

I don't believe blindly, and clearly I am here bothering.

Do you, though? Because you clearly said that you are: "not all that interested in investigating and debating all the various claims, which as [z8000783 said], can often be in conflict with each other."

Thus, I don't see why inquiring sincerely in to trying to understand the fact of the matter (remember that?) has to automatically lead to blind belief or disengagement. That could the choice of some though, sure.

It is, however, the most competent criticism of skepticism — and I point this out as a skeptic myself. I hope you're aware of its greatest flaw, at least.

You may have not seen this, but many of us openly profess that science has limits; however, it's our only means to go about anything, along with logic, with any semblance of not swallowing tripe wholesale.

Again, the fact that science is the best available tool does not automatically equal it's suitability for a specific job. You're jumping from one, to the next, without bothering to test your assumption.

That would only be your presumption, I am afraid; for starters, I have specifically pointed out to you (and others in my participation on the forum so far) that not all scientific means of inquiry have anything to do with claims on the metaphysical, let alone the divine specifically.

Jumping from one to the other without testing any assumptions? You have hardly even started showing that.

Again, you clearly omit the fact that many claims on the divine, and the most prevalent for that matter, make just the sort of claims that one would be clearly capable of assessing empirically and statistically.

For that matter, most of us would rather not have to deal with what tripe is being peddled every bloody way.

Then don't deal with it. What could be simpler? The fact is that most people aren't very philosophical, and don't bother themselves with any of these topics. And their life goes on.

Oh, sure it does — unless they happen to be non-heterosexual and don't exactly live in a place where the state has any sort of understanding for the whole affair. And that, naturetalk, is just the tip of the iceberg, and I say that, frankly, with the utmost disgust for such issues.

Were the cosmos a bit fairer, I would only muse on the divine as a pastime, if I fancied doing just that.

Actually, I've provided the same proof in the bits you have, once again, omitted.

Let's clear something up. I feel no obligation to respond to every point you make. If you'd like to interpret that as a victory, go right ahead, no problem, ok with me.

When someone constantly spouts the same victory cry as you do by repeating the same assertions and never going about and dealing with other members of the board, that is, has been, and probably will remain considerable as an instance of trolling. Yes, you are not obliged to respond to everything. However, ignoring the pertinent and going, apparently, around and keeping to the same old song is, I'm telling as a member, not a moderator, unseemly. It is intellectually dishonest as well, because it is the sort of conduct that only tries to evade, not address the points...

Ironically, you've still responded to my posts — yet not the most pertinent points; is that a coincidence?

Do you realize you have not once addressed my actual points, my "real question directly" whatsoever?

Your real question is, why am I not taking your points seriously. And the answer is, as stated above, because you aren't taking them seriously yourself.

And you profess to know this factually through what means, specifically? Need I remind you of your own words?

"Is there something going on over our heads that we don't know about?"

What epistemic foundation do you have to support your proclamation that I don't take these points seriously?

By the way, what I would call my real question would be: "Why do you not defend your arguments from their own, blatantly obvious flaws?" People shouldn't profess that science can unveil all possible deities, and many of us say exactly that quite clearly; ironically, most such postulates are either unfalsifiable or plainly ridiculous. However, everyone should understand that if a deity is posited as affecting the world in a manner that would allow science some means to detect such intervention, then such intervention should clearly be detectable by science. To claim otherwise according to a non sequitur regarding the detectability of extraterrestrial lifeforms is a red herring...

I am not defending a predetermined conclusion, naturetalk; I am only showing how absurd your challenge is, and hopefully you understand how reductio ad absurdum operates.

You are taking conclusions, debating, and victory seriously. Which is your right of course. There's nothing wrong with that, and I'm not claiming that there is. I'm just not fully interested, that's all.

Oh, I taking argumentation just as seriously — and that's the problem in this case; pardon me, but I am not really impressed by the incessant aspersions you try to cast over my person. Not once have you defended your claims in regard to science, and that is certainly disingenuous given the entire context.

[naturetalk]

When someone constantly spouts the same victory cry as you do by repeating the same assertions and never going about and dealing with other members of the board,

The fully documented fact is that I've gone about and dealt in great detail with many members of the board. Just not with you, to the degree you insist is important. And now, no longer at all, because...

that is, has been, and probably will remain considerable as an instance of trolling.

It's clear you have learned nothing from your last episode of tossing unsubstantiated forum policy charges around.

[Teuton]

Belief is only necessary where there is a lack of evidence.

No, belief and knowledge aren't mutually exclusive, since knowledge is a kind of belief: justified and (non-accidentally) true belief.

[RaspK]

When someone constantly spouts the same victory cry as you do by repeating the same assertions and never going about and dealing with other members of the board,

The fully documented fact is that I've gone about and dealt in great detail with many members of the board. Just not with you, to the degree you insist is important. And now, no longer at all, because...

that is, has been, and probably will remain considerable as an instance of trolling.

It's clear you have learned nothing from your last episode of tossing unsubstantiated forum policy charges around.

The gravest irony's that you have not once touched upon my counters to your criticism; style over content, eh?

[DontKnow11]

A frequent argument made by theists on this board goes: "Atheism relies on faith no less than theism does. The existence of a god cannot be disproven, so for someone to say they believe no god exists is as much a statement of faith as someone saying god does."

However, I often go beyond this, saying that we can contrast two "stronger" beliefs regarding the status of God's existence:

1) God does not exist.

2) God does exist.

Strictly speaking, neither of these statements can be confirmed or refuted by existing evidence. However, I still do not see them as equally valid. To my mind, it seems that a greater leap of logic is involved in stating that one believes God exists despite the fact that there is no evidence for his existence, than in stating that one believes God does not exist because there is no evidence for his existence.

IOW, someone who claims to be a solid 7 on the atheist scale is still on firmer ground, logically, than someone who professes belief in a god, because the strong atheist position does not require positing an entity for whose existence no evidence exists.

On an intuitive level, this argument makes sense to me. But I wonder if it's validity could be demonstrated thru more rigorous processes of logic. I mostly hang out in the science dept., so I wondered if you philosophers could lend me a hand here.

Hi Shrunk

I think the only way to say atheism is not a belief and theism is not belief is to just define atheism as not a belief and theism as a belief without further defining what is meant by belief. If you could truly define belief and it turns out that with such a definition theism falls within this definition and atheism is outside of it then that would be OK. I don't see though any such definition is possible unless you explicitly call theism belief and atheism not a belief (which would beg the question about the meaning of belief).

The usual (and correct IMHO) response to this is to point out that atheism is more correctly defined as the absence of belief in God's existence, rather than the active belief that God does not exist.

But then many things are atheists including all inanimate things and animals who can't have any belief. Cats for example most likely have this "absence of belief in God's existence" but one can't call them atheists. Some people may have no opinion about god's existence or non-existence. Are they atheists also? Or is a theist an atheist when he sleeps or eats or any other time when he has this "absence of belief in God's existence"?

What is belief? Maybe if you define belief then the absence of belief is by itself belief. What about defining theism as "absence of absence of belief in God's existence, rather than the active belief that God exist" or as "absence of belief in God's non-existence, rather than the active belief that God does not exist" would these definitions make theism non-belief? Of course I'm assuming that such definitions are same as belief in God's existence.

Another problem with such a definition of atheism will become clear when considering this situation: there's an X-ism such that it involves "absence of belief in God's existence, rather than the active belief that God does not exist as well as absence of belief in God's non-existence, rather than the active belief that God exists". Is this X-ism same as atheism? If not then what is atheism holding about second part? It certainly does not hold "absence of belief in God's non-existence, rather than the active belief that God exists". Otherwise X-ism is atheism. If it does not hold this idea then doesn't it mean atheism is "presence" of belief in God's non-existence? I think it does.

After all if atheism is not a belief why would you say "However, I often go beyond this, saying that we can contrast two "stronger" beliefs regarding the status of God's existence"? You have just mentioned that both are beliefs but one is "stronger" (which I don't know what it means).

Atheism and theism are metaphysical fields. No logic is "stronger" or "weaker" for supporting any of these fields. Logic is mere game and saying either one of these have better logical basis is like saying "chess gives more evidence to atheism then theism".

Regards