"I just believe in one fewer god than you do"

[CaptainCourtesy]

Believing the sun will rise tomorrow is based on something more than faith. We have a whole branch of science that looks at how things like that work.

Believing a friend will not betray you is based on your knowledge of the person. You are working from evidence. It is admittedly incomplete, but it is not a data vacuum.

You could get into some very metaphysical crap here, how can you know anything really exists kinda thing, but we base such belief on the evidence of our senses. if we start to doubt our data collection ability(senses), then anything or nothing can be true, which is not a useful assumption.

OK. Sounds like you use "faith" as an analogy for "in my experience". Would that be correct?

 

[Redress]

OK. Sounds like you use "faith" as an analogy for "in my experience". Would that be correct?

Faith is basing belief on a lack of experience. All knowledge essentially comes from experience.

I have the feeling I am still not understanding part of the concept you are asking about, which is making it hard to answer in a way that makes sense.

 

[spud_meister]

my definition of faith is belief without proof, like the belief in gods, or Einstein's faith that his theory of relativity was correct, my faith that his theory was correct, which, incidentally, stems from having read that his theory is correct in books.

to argue the existence of god based on proof is rather pointless, as he is an omnipotent being, and i believe it says in that book of his that faith is a requirement to go to heaven, and if there was proof of his existence, people would no longer have faith, so he would make himself improvable.

 

[Agent Ferris]

One more time with feeling. All your are demonstrating is that both positions are UNproven.

One position is an unfalsifiable positive assertion which lacks any value whatsoever, the position that there is no god is backed up by the fact that all known forms of direct and indirect empirical investigation have failed to provide a single scrap of evidence for its existence thus we must assume that it does not exist until evidence to the contrary is brought forward. The latter is a valid position backed up by all the available evidence the other is an unfalsifiable positive assertion. One can not completely disprove a negative, however, we can use inductive reasoning to reach the reasonable conclusion that there is no god just as we can you inductive reasoning to determine that there is no invisible dragon which breathes heatless fire living in my garage.

You are free to believe what you want as am I, but you can not demonstrate any falseness in my position, nor I yours. Further, as I have been telling you, there is an asymmetrical burden of proof on YOU. And lastly, I am not trying to prove the existence of GOd; you seem to be trying to prove the lack of existence. Therefore, the burden of proof is ONLY on you, though that burden is less substantial, as only you are trying to prove a position.

I would argue that this asymmetrical burden of proof has been met due to the fact that all known methods of direct and indirect empirical analysis have been exhausted and have yet to find any evidence whatsoever for the existence of god, using that fact through inductive reasoning we can come to the logical conclusion that it does not exist and that that is the only reasonable default position to have until evidence to the contrary is provided.

 

[Agent Ferris]

Once you use the phrase "safely assume" you are outside the realm of "proof" and inside the realm of assumptions. You have just demonstrated one reason why you cannot make a proof out of your position.

No we are inside the realm of inductive reasoning. If inductive reasoning was not allowed to replace actual proofs when presented with an unfalsifiable positive assertion then we wouldn't be able to prove much of anything. Again I point you to Sagan's dragon. In your world the statement that bigfoot exists is just as valid as the statement that it does not exist even though people have searched and searched and searched and found absolutely 0 compelling evidence for its existence, however, that is not how the world of science works as of now bigfoot is not catologed as a species of animal and will remain that way until compelling evidence to the contrary is brought forward, likewise the logical position given the evidence is that god does not exist any assertion to the contrary is based on nothing at all.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

The Jews were the first monotheists, in that they believe their God is the only true God and all else are false. They weren't atheists.

Actually I believe the Zoroastrians were the first know monotheistic relgion

Zoroastrianism
A Zoroastrian is an adherent to Zoroastrianism, a monotheistic religion which was once one of the biggest religions on Earth, founded in the early part of the 12-10th century BCE, or possibly even earlier in the 18th Century BCE. The religion is based on the teachings and philosophies of Zoroaster. The Zoroastrians (or "Parsis") are sometimes credited with being the first monotheists and having had significant influence in the formation of current, larger world religions. Today, some figures put the number of adherents to Zoroastrianism at up to 3.5 million,[41] ranging from regions in South Asia and spread across the globe.

Monotheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many articles that I have read indicate that Judaism and as a result Christianity and Islam derived from it. Given the geographical location of where Zoroastrianism was practiced and where Judaism was founded/practiced it is a good possibility

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Well, firstly I see the adoption of the one true god as a natural evolution, from idol worship of minor gods borne in human ignorance to an embrace of the greater nature of the universe. As far as Im concerned the 'god' that transmitted the Qu'ran or Old Testament is the same that informed the Buddha of the fundamental unit of matter we call the atom, and lots of other 'transmissions' I essentially hock up to spiritual space waves.

Quite bitter of you.

I have viewed the development of monotheism as being pushed by the political leaders at the time to promote a stronger cultural identity, and as such a less fragile society. ( no competing gods to fracture the social structure through competition

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Overall

I can not prove that god does not exist, all scientific evidence says god does not exist, but as we dont know everything in the universe gods exisistance is a possibility. With that however comes the possibility that the various other religions gods exist from Woden, Thor, to Kiva and Shiva to Bhudda. None of those gods can be proven to not exist in the same way as the Jewish or Christian god.

As such I am agnostic about god/gods. I doubt they exist, and practice my life based on the theory they do not. But I am open to the slim possibility they do

 

[Chappy]

… all scientific evidence says god does not exist …

I don't think science addresses the question about whether God exists or not.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

I don't think science addresses the question about whether God exists or not.

I am sure that someone has tried scientific methods to determine the existance of god/gods before. They have tried to use scienctific methods to prove the existance of souls

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

One position is an unfalsifiable positive assertion which lacks any value whatsoever, the position that there is no god is backed up by the fact that all known forms of direct and indirect empirical investigation have failed to provide a single scrap of evidence for its existence thus we must assume that it does not exist until evidence to the contrary is brought forward. The latter is a valid position backed up by all the available evidence the other is an unfalsifiable positive assertion. One can not completely disprove a negative, however, we can use inductive reasoning to reach the reasonable conclusion that there is no god just as we can you inductive reasoning to determine that there is no invisible dragon which breathes heatless fire living in my garage.

1) Appeal to ignorance logical fallacy... AGAIN.
2) As soon as you use the word "reasonable", you no longer have a proof; all you have is UNproven.
3) Fail... again.

I would argue that this asymmetrical burden of proof has been met due to the fact that all known methods of direct and indirect empirical analysis have been exhausted and have yet to find any evidence whatsoever for the existence of god, using that fact through inductive reasoning we can come to the logical conclusion that it does not exist and that that is the only reasonable default position to have until evidence to the contrary is provided.

No, the asymmetrical burden of proof has not been met. To do that, not only would all known methods need to be exhausted, but ALL POSSIBLE methods would need to be exhausted. That has not been done. Therefore, all you have is UNproven.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

No we are inside the realm of inductive reasoning. If inductive reasoning was not allowed to replace actual proofs when presented with an unfalsifiable positive assertion then we wouldn't be able to prove much of anything. Again I point you to Sagan's dragon. In your world the statement that bigfoot exists is just as valid as the statement that it does not exist even though people have searched and searched and searched and found absolutely 0 compelling evidence for its existence, however, that is not how the world of science works as of now bigfoot is not catologed as a species of animal and will remain that way until compelling evidence to the contrary is brought forward, likewise the logical position given the evidence is that god does not exist any assertion to the contrary is based on nothing at all.

Sagan's dragon is flawed in the same way that your position is. You can neither prove nor disprove either. All you can do is say UNproven. Now, based on data, you can say "it is more likely that "X" exists or doesn't exist" but thats as far as you can go. Further, you are looking at this as either black or white... and it is not. I have never seen a bigfoot, and all available information demonstrates that it does not exist. I would then believe that it does not exist... however, I would also conclude that it is UNproven, and I would not eliminate the possibility that it does exist; previously unknown species are discovered at times, species thought to be extinct are rediscovered, and species thought to have never existed are found via fossils. Now, since all of these things are possibilities, the conclusion of UNproven is accurate. One makes a determination on their degree of belief based on information, in absence of direct empirical data for either possibility. There is no empirical data that directly shows the existence of God. There is no empirical data that directly refutes the existence of God. It is therefore up to the individual to assess information based on their own assessment system and belief system to determine whether they believe God exists or not, and how this belief will impact them. This is all a matter of degree... not black and white. There are no facts, here. I can't prove them. You can't prove them The end result is UNproven.

 

[Agent Ferris]

1) Appeal to ignorance logical fallacy... AGAIN.
2) As soon as you use the word "reasonable", you no longer have a proof; all you have is UNproven.
3) Fail... again.

The only one failing is YOU, do you not understand the ****ing concept of inductive logic? Do you not understand the concept of an unfalsifiable positive assertion and why inductive logic is the only option available to prove such a negative? Based on all of the evidence the only logical conclusion at this point is that god does not exist and will remain so until further evidence to the contrary is presented.

No, the asymmetrical burden of proof has not been met. To do that, not only would all known methods need to be exhausted, but ALL POSSIBLE methods would need to be exhausted. That has not been done. Therefore, all you have is UNproven.

Then by your logic nothing has ever been proven.

For example it has not been disproven that 2,000 years in the future apples will fall up. By your logic you can not disprove this theory because we have not invented a time machine to go 2,000 years into the future to prove conclusively that balls will not fall up. My claim that apples will begin to fall up 2,000 years in the future holds just as much value as your claim that god exists IE none at all. Both are unfalsifiable positive assertions contradicted by all the available evidence.

 

[Agent Ferris]

Sagan's dragon is flawed in the same way that your position is. You can neither prove nor disprove either. All you can do is say UNproven.

No you can say disproven until evidence to the contrary is presented, that is called inductive logic.

Now, based on data, you can say "it is more likely that "X" exists or doesn't exist" but thats as far as you can go. Further, you are looking at this as either black or white... and it is not. I have never seen a bigfoot, and all available information demonstrates that it does not exist. I would then believe that it does not exist... however, I would also conclude that it is UNproven, and I would not eliminate the possibility that it does exist; previously unknown species are discovered at times, species thought to be extinct are rediscovered, and species thought to have never existed are found via fossils. Now, since all of these things are possibilities, the conclusion of UNproven is accurate. One makes a determination on their degree of belief based on information, in absence of direct empirical data for either possibility. There is no empirical data that directly shows the existence of God. There is no empirical data that directly refutes the existence of God. It is therefore up to the individual to assess information based on their own assessment system and belief system to determine whether they believe God exists or not, and how this belief will impact them. This is all a matter of degree... not black and white. There are no facts, here. I can't prove them. You can't prove them The end result is UNproven.

There is no empirical evidence disproving that 2,000 years in the future apples will begin to fall up. Negatives can never be proven 100%, however, inductive logic can be employed to come to safe conclusions based on all of the evidence available. As of now the only logical conclusion is that god does not exist and that apples will not begin to fall up 2,000 years in the future and will remain the only logical conclusion until evidence to the contrary is presented.

By your logic stating that on earth with no other forces acting upon it that a dropped apple will always fall down can not be considered proven.

 

[Dezaad]

One more time with feeling. All your are demonstrating is that both positions are UNproven. You are free to believe what you want as am I ...

Are you stating here that it is rational to believe a positive claim for which there is no evidence?

 

[Dezaad]

@CaptainCourtesy, Actually, don't answer that previous post, if you'll answer this one instead:

Do you believe that it is rational to believe positive claims for which there is no evidence?

Delighted if others wish to answer as well, just particularly interested in CC's answer.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

@CaptainCourtesy, Actually, don't answer that previous post, if you'll answer this one instead:

Do you believe that it is rational to believe positive claims for which there is no evidence?

Delighted if others wish to answer as well, just particularly interested in CC's answer.

It is not rational to believe positive claims for which there is not evidence. It is rational to open to the possibility despite how slim the probability is.


I do not think there is a god, or gods. But scientific methods can not rule out the possibility currently, as such there is a very small chance they may exist

 

[reefedjib]

@CaptainCourtesy, Actually, don't answer that previous post, if you'll answer this one instead:

Do you believe that it is rational to believe positive claims for which there is no evidence?

Delighted if others wish to answer as well, just particularly interested in CC's answer.

On the one hand, Max Weber defined Wertrational, his second type of rationality based on beliefs.

However, rationality is defined as objective reasoning. Since the entire world is subjective to each of us, including all other people, and our own self-awareness as well, it is impossible for anyone to reason objectively. There is no such thing as rational thought.

 

[rudygetsplenty]

The only one failing is YOU, do you not understand the ****ing concept of inductive logic? Do you not understand the concept of an unfalsifiable positive assertion and why inductive logic is the only option available to prove such a negative? Based on all of the evidence the only logical conclusion at this point is that god does not exist and will remain so until further evidence to the contrary is presented.



Then by your logic nothing has ever been proven.

For example it has not been disproven that 2,000 years in the future apples will fall up. By your logic you can not disprove this theory because we have not invented a time machine to go 2,000 years into the future to prove conclusively that balls will not fall up. My claim that apples will begin to fall up 2,000 years in the future holds just as much value as your claim that god exists IE none at all. Both are unfalsifiable positive assertions contradicted by all the available evidence.

Inductive logic is a fool's pleasure. When mankind had no concept of the construction of the universe, inductive logic led him to believe that the earth was flat. Indeed the creation of gods to explain the nature mankind did not yet understand is a fine example of inductive logic. If you tried to explain to the most intelligent scientists in the world 2000 years ago the concept of genetics, you'd have little luck. It is amazing that although we have a better perception than anyone in history of how wrong science has been throughout history, we are more convinced than ever that modern science is infallible. We are likely no closer to understanding the true nature of the universe than ever, yet in our desire to feel knowledgeable we convince ourselves that WE'VE got it right". All of the historical evidence in the world is no match for our ego.

 

[rudygetsplenty]

It is not rational to believe positive claims for which there is not evidence. It is rational to open to the possibility despite how slim the probability is.


I do not think there is a god, or gods. But scientific methods can not rule out the possibility currently, as such there is a very small chance they may exist

I agree right up with you to the "small chance" part. The idea that we are in a position to call those odds is insane to me, like John Madden predicting the winner of the Superbowl in the year 3000.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

The only one failing is YOU, do you not understand the ****ing concept of inductive logic? Do you not understand the concept of an unfalsifiable positive assertion and why inductive logic is the only option available to prove such a negative? Based on all of the evidence the only logical conclusion at this point is that god does not exist and will remain so until further evidence to the contrary is presented.

I've already showed that I understand it, I've already showed that you have nothing but weak induction, and I've already showed that your conclusion is a logical fallacy. Now, we can keep going round and round, but these facts are not going to change. You cannot prove your position, or prove mine false.

Then by your logic nothing has ever been proven.

No, I don't think I said that. One thing is for certain: you cannot prove beliefs by using scientific examination.

For example it has not been disproven that 2,000 years in the future apples will fall up. By your logic you can not disprove this theory because we have not invented a time machine to go 2,000 years into the future to prove conclusively that balls will not fall up. My claim that apples will begin to fall up 2,000 years in the future holds just as much value as your claim that god exists IE none at all. Both are unfalsifiable positive assertions contradicted by all the available evidence.

In bold is your error. You are playing the absolute game... one which you CANNOT win. It is UNproven, because we do not know all the variable, nor do we know what will happen in the future. Further, it is not analogous, because you are, again comparing something scientific with a belief. The reason why it is so easy to refute you is because you are trying to argue something in a way that it can't be argued.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Are you stating here that it is rational to believe a positive claim for which there is no evidence?

Since this is belief, not science, it is subjective, not objective, evidence itself would be subjective and open for interpretation. Therefore, your question is not applicable, other than in the way that I just answered it.

Here's a question for you. Is it rational to believe in something that has not been proven false?

 

[Orion]

I'll never understand one person's need to try and "right the wrong" of another person's epistemological perspective on life and the nature of their own existence.

I know what I know, I feel what I feel, and if that doesn't translate into an "acceptable" explanation for you, then oh well.

It is much more honest to simply say that no matter how much we know in this world, we will never know everything, and each person carries a piece of the puzzle. If you are too busy dissecting the correctness of other people's deep views on life, you'll miss the point of living.

 

[Dezaad]

Since this is belief, not science, it is subjective, not objective, evidence itself would be subjective and open for interpretation. Therefore, your question is not applicable, other than in the way that I just answered it.

So, most importantly, would you be saying that some claims that we encounter can be be accepted on no objective evidence at all, while other claims require at least some objective evidence? If you answer nothing else in this response, I am most interested in this answer.

Also, of some importance, do you agree or disagree with the statement "Rationality is to be held above non-rationality as an approach to evaluating claims."?

Here's a question for you. Is it rational to believe in something that has not been proven false?

I think you mean to say "Is it rational to believe that something is false which has not been proven as such?", but you can correct me if I am wrong. I just want to be clear, so if I am taking you wrong it is not because I am trying to piss you off or anything, it is simply that I disagree with your wording and am failing to understand as a consequence. Mine may be wrong, instead, though, and it doesn't need to be a point of contention. If I am wrong, simply clarify it for me with a different wording, please.

So, putting it into a concrete example, what you are asking me is "If 'God Does Not Exist' is not proven, is it rational to believe that God does not exist?"

If I were to answer you by parroting the manner in which you answered me, I believe I would have to say "Since this is belief, not science, it is subjective, not objective, evidence itself would be subjective and open for interpretation. Therefore your question is not applicable, other than in the way I just answered it." Therefore, taking your own standard, believing that God Does Not Exist would be acceptable.

Indeed, believing that God Exists would seem to also be acceptable. One has to wonder something, though. If it is ok for Joe to believe God Exists, and for Peter to believe that God Does Not Exist, then is it ok for Mary to believe the completely incoherent combination of both "God Exists" and "God Does Not Exist"? Maybe it is psychologically impossible to believe two mutually exclusive claims at once, maybe not. But, if we suppose that it is possible, is it acceptable to believe both?

But, to answer you with my own approach:

As I have indicated elsewhere, No, it is not rational to believe something is false which has no objective evidence showing that it is false. This includes the claim "God Exists Is A False Claim" or, the equivalent claim "God Does Not Exist". But, I believe when I add that the claim "The Tooth Fairy Exists Is A False Claim" to the list of those claims for which there is no objective evidence (that there is no objective evidence that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist), you will take offense on behalf of believers everywhere. Aside from the fact that you contend that there is evidence that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist (a matter with which I contend), you seem to take offense to the mere comparison, rather than think that I am simply mistaken.

In any case, whatever the claim, let's choose the pantheon of God's as the list of unsupported claims, instead of thinking about the Tooth Fairy as one. This is in keeping with the OP, in any event.

Consider the following list of unproven claims (Not exhaustive, we're just looking at the first several of the Celtic gods, here. There are quite a number of additional Celtic gods and then all the other cultures to work through):

Macha does not exist.
Rhiannon does not exist.
Epona does not exist.
Aimed does not exist.
Blenus does not exist.
Borvo does not exist.
Grannus does not exist.

I think we agree that all of these claims are unproven. I am curious what your attitude toward each of these claims has been? In your life, have you acted as though "Borvo does not exist" is true, or have you acted as though "Borvo exists" is true. I contend that "neither" really isn't an option. People who accept that Borvo exists seek his help in gaining healing, while those who do not, refrain from seeking that help. Everyone has either sought that help from Borvo or not.

Indeed, I contend that when people discover that there are a pragmatically limitless number of these types of claims out there, they really don't start acting like each one has any need for evaluation for truth. They live their lives as though each and every one of the claims is true (that "X does not exist" is true), except for a very few of the claims.

I agree with you that it is not rational to hold that these claims are proven. But, do we really differ from each other in the following: It is not strictly rational to treat each of these, literally millions, of claims in a neutral fashion. Is it your contention that each of these claims is to be treated neutrally? As in, for example, should we wonder if we don't give homage to Borvo whether that will end in our sick Aunt dying of cancer?

If a compulsive patient came to you and said, "I am very worried about my Aunt. You see, she's ill and could easily die. Just to give her the best chance possible to survive, I am researching all the gods of healing that have been recorded, finding out how their aid was secured and following the historical ceremonies to the best of my ability. This is taking some time, as you can imagine! I have taken time off of work and moved back home with mother in order to make time for this."

You wouldn't want to knock him upside the head and say "ARE YOU CRAZY??" I know I certainly would, and I don't think I would be the irrational one in doing so.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I will address the remainder of your post, later. One point that I want to make is this. There is a difference between having a belief and performing some action based on that belief.