11 of 13
11
The Delusional Atheist
Posted: 05 January 2011 05:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 151 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2422
Joined  2007-09-03
john76 - 05 January 2011 01:13 PM

A lack of evidence for God is not evidence of the absence of God. 

yes it is.

It’s not conclusive evidence—but it’s sufficient evidence that the default position should be “we provisionally assume that God does not exist until we see evidence to the contrary”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2011 05:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 152 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  263
Joined  2008-11-10

Sorry Jackson, you fail logic class


-just kidding, Jackson has invented a new type of logic!  I change my position.  We highly evolved chimpanzee-cousins do have a way of telling whether God exists or not.  What was I thinking.  Atheism all the way!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2011 05:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 153 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2422
Joined  2007-09-03
john76 - 05 January 2011 05:11 PM

Sorry Jackson, you fail logic class


-just kidding, Jackson has invented a new type of logic!  I change my position.  We highly evolved chimpanzee-cousins do have a way of telling whether God exists or not.  What was I thinking.  Atheism all the way!

Do you agree that there is “reasonable doubt” that God exists?


“Absence of Evidence” means there is a a reasonable doubt that evidence is absent.

It is reasonable to doubt that God exists.

There is no reason to believe any specific claims of any specific religion.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2011 05:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 154 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26
john76 - 05 January 2011 04:25 PM

The best we can do is assert this very weak negative claim: inquiring into the universe, as far as we can tell by current methods of scientific inquiry, a divine intelligence does not need to be postulated at any stage of the process.  That’s the beginning and the end of it.  That’s the only truth we know about God.  I am suggesting that there is absolutely no way to logically or dialectically move from this claim, to the use of qualifiers like this: it is likely God exist, or it is unlikely that God exist.  What you don’t seem to understand about logic is that these qualifiers need some iota of basis in evidence, and they have none.  The leap of faith is what you want me to grant you, but we’ll just have to agree to disagree.  A lot of atheist seem to think that all they have to do is assert there is no evidence for God, and that by doing that they have also shown the positive claim that atheism is somehow justified.  You don’t need formal logic to show that is wrong because this move from the negative to the positive in this way is a basic paralogism.  There is and can be no evidence that God does not exist, so atheism is an evidence-less theory.  When I say ‘mathematically,’ 50/50 is just a numerical representation of the fact that logic does not allow us to move (make a leap of faith) from the negative claim that God is not epistemologically necessary from an explanatory point of view at this point in scientific development, to a positive claim of atheism.  You can play with formal logic and predicate calculous all you like, but all human reason can ever produce is (to restate the above in a slightly different way): Concerning reality, as far as we can tell by current achievements of scientific inquiry, a divine intelligence does not appear to be needed to be postulated at any stage of the process.    There is no way to move from that truth, to claims of truth about atheism, because that negative claim is the sole proposition human reason knows about the existence of God.  Atheists and theists can use the faculty of the imagination to invent other claims about God’s existence, but they’re merely fanciful.  Theism is blind belief and wishful thinking.  So is atheism.  Really -really thinking God doesn’t exist doesn’t translate into epistemological unlikelihood.  It’s just wishful thinking.  ‘The God Delusion’ is really-really intricately argued on this point, but intricate doesn’t mean true.

Huh?
First of all Atheists do not “assert” anything in relation to a god. There is no need for an atheist to assert a negative. Moreover, the absence of a god does not create a “negative” condition. It merely removes a positively “asserted” condition. If after 2000 years of in depth scrutiny by theists and atheists alike, there is no evidence of an intelligence or the need for one, we can “reasonably” assume that there is no “intelligence” which, in spite of the lack of any evidence, is still being “asserted” by theists.
How long must we wait for theists to admit that their god is the product of indoctrination which translates in a subjective personal experience for some, but has no basis in fact. To remove that is not an assertion, it is a mathematical function.

Theist:  1 + 1 + god = 2
Atheist: 1 + 1 + 0   = 2
Who is trying to assert something here?

[ Edited: 05 January 2011 05:25 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2011 05:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 155 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  636
Joined  2010-07-01

It’s like debating with Forest Gump.

“My mama always told me there IS a God, and she aint never lied to me before. That’s all I gotta say about that.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2011 05:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 156 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26
john76 - 05 January 2011 05:11 PM

Sorry Jackson, you fail logic class


-just kidding, Jackson has invented a new type of logic!  I change my position.  We highly evolved chimpanzee-cousins do have a way of telling whether God exists or not.  What was I thinking.  Atheism all the way!

You cannot use that example.
The concept of god started with the early hominids (apes). It is only the evolution of intelligence (advanced thinking) that first created doubt as to the existence of god, and still later, this doubt was generally confirmed by science.

Evidence: During a monsoon, an alpha chimpanzee may run around, swinging a stick and screaming to the heavens in warning to this “unseen enemy”  which throws water at him and makes him wet. Later, the value of water was recognized and the “unseen enemy” turned into a “benificent god of rain” (and a host of other gods for specific natural events. i.e mythology) That was the beginning of theism, not atheism.

[ Edited: 05 January 2011 05:55 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2011 05:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 157 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2008-03-08
john76 - 05 January 2011 05:11 PM

Sorry Jackson, you fail logic class


-just kidding, Jackson has invented a new type of logic!  I change my position.  We highly evolved chimpanzee-cousins do have a way of telling whether God exists or not.  What was I thinking.  Atheism all the way!

Jackson was indeed appealing to ignorance.

What you’re failing to understand is that we are justified in not accepting a claim if there is no good reason to accept it. This isn’t to say that “if we don’t see evidence, it doesn’t exist”, ie appealing to ignorance. Do you believe in leprechauns living in a distant galaxy? Can you show us that that isn’t true? Well, then there’s a 50-50 chance that it is true. That’s an incredibly childish argument. What we’re looking for are reasoned justifications for maintaining claims as being the case or the likelihood of them being the case. It doesn’t make any sense to go around chasing after evidence for the non-existence of things. If someone wants to posit the existence of something that is not a given and especially if that claim appears to conflict with what is currently known, ie that which we have very good reason for maintaining, then the person making that claim needs to provide the case or the evidence in favor of the claim. Until then, we are perfectly justified in focusing on the things that we have evidence and (good) arguments to work with.

BTW, acting snotty really doesn’t help anyone want to deal with you or take you seriously. And if you’re not here for a reasoned discussion, you’re just trolling.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2011 05:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 158 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5187
Joined  2010-06-16

It appears to me that the posters here have been sucked into an upside down argument.  Quoting John76

A lack of evidence for God is not evidence of the absence of God.

isn’t really the basis for the argument.  John seems to be arguing for the existence of a god, and it is the job of the person declaring a premise to prove that it’s true.  Therefore, John, please present us with evidence to convince us of the existence of a god. 

As I’ve said, I’m not 100% certain of the non-existence of such a being, so I am open to being converted based on logically and physically demonstrable evidence.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2011 06:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 159 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2008-03-08
john76 - 05 January 2011 04:25 PM

The best we can do is assert this very weak negative claim: inquiring into the universe, as far as we can tell by current methods of scientific inquiry, a divine intelligence does not need to be postulated at any stage of the process.  That’s the beginning and the end of it.  That’s the only truth we know about God.  I am suggesting that there is absolutely no way to logically or dialectically move from this claim, to the use of qualifiers like this: it is likely God exist, or it is unlikely that God exist.  What you don’t seem to understand about logic is that these qualifiers need some iota of basis in evidence, and they have none.  The leap of faith is what you want me to grant you, but we’ll just have to agree to disagree.  A lot of atheist seem to think that all they have to do is assert there is no evidence for God, and that by doing that they have also shown the positive claim that atheism is somehow justified.  You don’t need formal logic to show that is wrong because this move from the negative to the positive in this way is a basic paralogism.  There is and can be no evidence that God does not exist, so atheism is an evidence-less theory.  When I say ‘mathematically,’ 50/50 is just a numerical representation of the fact that logic does not allow us to move (make a leap of faith) from the negative claim that God is not epistemologically necessary from an explanatory point of view at this point in scientific development, to a positive claim of atheism.  You can play with formal logic and predicate calculous all you like, but all human reason can ever produce is (to restate the above in a slightly different way): Concerning reality, as far as we can tell by current achievements of scientific inquiry, a divine intelligence does not appear to be needed to be postulated at any stage of the process.    There is no way to move from that truth, to claims of truth about atheism, because that negative claim is the sole proposition human reason knows about the existence of God.  Atheists and theists can use the faculty of the imagination to invent other claims about God’s existence, but they’re merely fanciful.  Theism is blind belief and wishful thinking.  So is atheism.  Really -really thinking God doesn’t exist doesn’t translate into epistemological unlikelihood.  It’s just wishful thinking.  ‘The God Delusion’ is really-really intricately argued on this point, but intricate doesn’t mean true.

Just saw this post. What you seem to be forgetting are certain descriptions of “God.” Descriptions of such a being that are logically impossible are just that, impossible. This is one of the reasons that there are so many failed arguments for the existence of “God”, they either are logically invalid or seem to conflict with our most supported understanding of certain aspects of the physical world, knowledge that arises from science. If we have a scientific explanation that is heavily supported for some physical phenomena, we then show that adding a “God” to that explanation isn’t very parsimonious at all, then we can reasonably do away with the explanation that has excessive features. If it is the case that Occam’s razor is a reasonable tool for picking between explanations, then our reason for asserting the likelihood of “God’s” existence, particularly the type of “God” that has been typically asserted throughout history does seem to go down. This is the reason we’ve gone from a God of the Bible that directly intervenes with his creations to a God that resides “outside of space and time” (even though “outside” is a term in reference to something that utilizes the idea of space, wtf, really?) and probably has no interaction at all with any of us.

I do agree that many atheists are guilty of appealing to ignorance. So are many theists, so what? That some appeal to ignorance doesn’t change that we still have no good reason for accept the claim of the existence of a “God.” If you’re arguing that we have an equal probability of a logically consistent “God” “existing” (may need defining in this context) as we do (logically consistent version of) leprechauns, dragons, every imaginary character every conceived by a 4 year old, etc, then we have no disagreement here.

[ Edited: 05 January 2011 06:22 PM by Kaizen ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2011 06:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 160 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  636
Joined  2010-07-01
Occam. - 05 January 2011 05:58 PM

It appears to me that the posters here have been sucked into an upside down argument.  Quoting John76

A lack of evidence for God is not evidence of the absence of God.

isn’t really the basis for the argument.  John seems to be arguing for the existence of a god, and it is the job of the person declaring a premise to prove that it’s true.  Therefore, John, please present us with evidence to convince us of the existence of a god. 

As I’ve said, I’m not 100% certain of the non-existence of such a being, so I am open to being converted based on logically and physically demonstrable evidence.

Occam

John doesn’t seem to be the type to absorb any new information. We’ve all made great points and yet he seems to cut and paste bis own rebuttals of previous arguments he thought were valid. I’m wondering if he picked up his ideas from his local church. That’d at least explain a few things.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2011 06:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 161 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26

We do have his last words.

John:

“What was I thinking.  Atheism all the way”!

John, welcome to the age of reason…... cheese

[ Edited: 05 January 2011 06:57 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 July 2011 03:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 162 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  39
Joined  2010-06-11

Where mountains of evidence should exist and none exists,as Victor Stenger notes and in line with Charles Moore’s auto-epistemic rule, then perforce , absence means no evidence. When the putative being has no referents as Prime Mover , Grand Miracle Monger and so forth and has contradictory,incoherent attributes, He cannot possibly exist; thus, we naturalists need not traverse the Cosmos nor have omniscience ourselves as analysis reveals!
  Therefore, it’d be against epistemology to find the glimmer of hope for His very existence! He is that married bachelor or square circle! He performs as gremlins and demons do as explanatory - the Primary Mover or the Sufficient Reason despite both Aquinas and Leibniz!
  Ignosticism-igtheism pervade strong atheism, performing the function of discarding empty ideas- no referents and no non-contradictory,coherent attributes. Again, how could such a mystery ever qualify as that ultimate personal explanation? How might a person have a relationship with a non-being? Ah, that divine imaginary friend to give solace!
  I prefer following the presumptions of rationalism and naturalism!
  God rests on the arguments from personal incredulity and from ignorance. To aver God without evidence rests on the one from ignorance1 With natural causes as the real thing, to introduce Him-that square circle or unicorn, is as averring phlogiston rather than oxidation at work! The superstitious cannot add Him to explanations as that makes for divine teleology replacing teleonomy as the primary cause as the presumption of naturalism so notes.

[ Edited: 26 July 2011 03:43 PM by Carneades Thales Strato of Ga. [griggsy ] ]
 Signature 

[size=6][/“size][color=redLife is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning>” Inquiring Lynn
      ” God is in a worse condition than the Scarecrow, who had a body to which a mind could enter whilst He has neither. He is that married bachelor. No wonder he is ineffable. ” Ignostic Morgan
” Religion is mythinformation.” An Englishlman.
  ” Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.” Griggsy[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 July 2011 04:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 163 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26

Divine Revelation is nothing more than a form of schizophrenia. It is the left brain “telling” the right brain what to “believe”.

Jaynes’ case for bicameralism
According to Jaynes ancient people in the bicameral state of mind would have experienced the world in a manner that has some similarities to that of a schizophrenic. Rather than making conscious evaluations in novel or unexpected situations, the person would hallucinate a voice or “god” giving admonitory advice or commands and obey without question: one would not be at all conscious of one’s own thought processes per se.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 July 2011 08:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 164 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2291
Joined  2007-07-05
Carneades Thales Strato of Ga. [griggsy ] - 26 July 2011 03:37 PM

Where mountains of evidence should exist and none exists,as Victor Stenger notes and in line with Charles Moore’s auto-epistemic rule, then perforce , absence means no evidence. When the putative being has no referents as Prime Mover , Grand Miracle Monger and so forth and has contradictory,incoherent attributes, He cannot possibly exist; thus, we naturalists need not traverse the Cosmos nor have omniscience ourselves as analysis reveals!

That is not proof of nonexistence it is only proof that most believers don’t know what they are talking about.

If 100 people make contradictory statements then at least 99 of them must be wrong.  But that does not prove there is not one that is correct.

If you don’t know then you don’t know.

If you don’t care that is fine too.  But the rational atheists are delusional.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 July 2011 10:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 165 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
psikeyhackr - 27 July 2011 08:25 AM
Carneades Thales Strato of Ga. [griggsy ] - 26 July 2011 03:37 PM

Where mountains of evidence should exist and none exists,as Victor Stenger notes and in line with Charles Moore’s auto-epistemic rule, then perforce , absence means no evidence. When the putative being has no referents as Prime Mover , Grand Miracle Monger and so forth and has contradictory,incoherent attributes, He cannot possibly exist; thus, we naturalists need not traverse the Cosmos nor have omniscience ourselves as analysis reveals!

That is not proof of nonexistence it is only proof that most believers don’t know what they are talking about.

If 100 people make contradictory statements then at least 99 of them must be wrong.  But that does not prove there is not one that is correct.

If you don’t know then you don’t know.

If you don’t care that is fine too.  But the rational atheists are delusional.

psik

The best we can do is support what we accept as true through a rational argument. One that is supported by verifiable evidence.

I’m happy to allow people to believe as they wish. As you say, maybe one of them is right. However I just don’t think there should be any expectation of acceptance of that belief without a rationally supported argument.

I’ve had several unexplainable experiences which affect my beliefs. I don’t expect anyone to accept my experiences as proof of anything.

[ Edited: 28 July 2011 10:34 PM by Gnostikosis ]
Profile
 
 
   
11 of 13
11