Atheists: Why does theism still exist?

[Loudmouth]

And please understand me when I say this:

God has no evidence not because he doesn't have evidence but should, but because he is incommensurate with evidence.

Why? Just because you say so?

Appealing to dragons, etc., is fallacious because dragons are physical things. You know, you should be able to touch them and stuff. Which means that when they fail to be seen, they've failed their own criteria (physicality, replication, testability, etc.). God is not a physical thing, given that physical things are created things. Therefore...

Seriously, this is an extremely important crux for this discussion.

What is stopping me from claiming the same thing for dragons that you claim for God?

What is stopping me from claiming the same thing for every made up entity that I wish to invent?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What is stopping me from claiming the same thing for dragons that you claim for God?

What is stopping me from claiming the same thing for every made up entity that I wish to invent?

I htink that God =/= dragon, conceptually, so therefore its unlikely that dragon is a creator, because it dont have those attributes.

And the more you give it God attributes, the less dragon it becomes?

 

[Received]

Why? Just because you say so?

Because of the other things I said in that response about God being a creator and therefore...

Also the self-negating problem of scientism.

What is stopping me from claiming the same thing for dragons that you claim for God?

What is stopping me from claiming the same thing for every made up entity that I wish to invent?

Ibid.

 

[Received]

The only fallacy is assuming that testability does not apply.

That assumes that only things that can be tested have truth value. Which, again,

again,

again,

negates itself given that this very claim can't be tested in the sense it demands of other things (i.e., scientifically, physically, replication, etc.).

 

[Loudmouth]

Because of the other things I said in that response about God being a creator and therefore...

God is defined as not being testable because all tests have failed.

Also the self-negating problem of scientism.

It appears to be a problem that you have invented out of whole cloth.

 

[Received]

I want everyone who has responded to call all their atheistic friends and have THEM respond as well.

More later.

 

[Received]

God is defined as not being testable because all tests have failed.

That's not it at all.

It appears to be a problem that you have invented out of whole cloth.

Of course it feels that way, because you're emotionally invested in your religio-- I mean scientism.

 

[Loudmouth]

That assumes that only things that can be tested have truth value.

False. Things that are not testable could be true or false. The only way of determining if something actually is true or false is by independent verification. If you want to claim that God does obejctively exist, then you need to provide that verification. If you want to simply claim that you believe in God through faith with no verification, then all the more power to you. That is where we end up with Sagan scratching his head as to why people would believe in invisible fire breathing dragons that live in garages, purely by faith.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's not it at all.

Then there is verifiable, objective evidence for God's existence?

Of course it feels that way, because you're emotionally invested in your religio-- I mean scientism.

Requiring evidence for claims is not a religion. Believing by faith in the absence of evidence is religion.

 

[Received]

False. Things that are not testable could be true or false. The only way of determining if something actually is true or false is by independent verification. If you want to claim that God does obejctively exist, then you need to provide that verification. If you want to simply claim that you believe in God through faith with no verification, then all the more power to you. That is where we end up with Sagan scratching his head as to why people would believe in invisible fire breathing dragons that live in garages, purely by faith.

No, Sagan is holding scientism, given this writing and others. You have a whole slew of bad philosopher scientists who hold this.

Then there is verifiable, objective evidence for God's existence?

See previous posts. I've answered this: incommensurable standards given intrinsic characteristics of a creator in relation to the physical universe, the latter which applies to verifiable, objective evidence in the empirical sense you throw down. Stop begging the question with your standard as the presupposed only one to use.

Requiring evidence for claims is not a religion. Believing by faith in the absence of evidence is religion.

Which is exactly what we do when we have philosophical or metaphysical presuppositions in terms of creating the standards that we do, including here the standard that verifiable evidence is what counts (and/or scientism), both in terms of the unquestioned assumption as to their validity (e.g., because they work, because what else would we use, because that's just how things are, etc., all of which provide no further justification for these standards) and the assumptions themselves. That's how faith works.

 

[quatona]

That assumes that only things that can be tested have truth value.

No. It just recognizes that untestable claims about allegedly existing things/entities are, from an epistemological pov, indistiguishable from claims about non-existing things. That´s unfortunate and regrettable, for sure, but that´s the way it is.

Your idea (that you just need to say "supernatural" - i.e. "untestable", "unfalsifiable" - and your claims magically get some truth value bonus points) is absurd.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, Sagan is holding scientism, given this writing and others.

Once again, you are trying to label science as a religion in order to make it look bad. What does that say about your beliefs? Why do you never see Sagan trying to make religion look like a science, but you always see religionists trying to make science look like a religion?

You have a whole slew of bad philosopher scientists who hold this.

The only bad philosophy is your blatant use of the tu quoque fallacy.

I've answered this: incommensurable standards given intrinsic characteristics of a creator in relation to the physical universe, the latter which applies to verifiable, objective evidence in the empirical sense you throw down.

There is no reason why a creator of a universe could not be tested for. None.

Which is exactly what we do when we have philosophical or metaphysical presuppositions in terms of creating the standards that we do, including here the standard that verifiable evidence is what counts (and/or scientism), both in terms of the unquestioned assumption as to their validity (e.g., because they work, because what else would we use, because that's just how things are, etc., all of which provide no further justification for these standards) and the assumptions themselves. That's how faith works.

Science is based on verifiable evidence, not faith.

 

[Paradoxum]

Interesting. At its heart, I don't think reason can back up a belief, by definition. Beliefs are often axiomatic and do not have reasons behind them.

I think reason can back up beliefs, and that we have reasons for beliefs literally all the time. For example, I believe that my dad in in room X, because I saw him walk in there, and there's no other way out. Most beliefs are like this.

Does that make them bad? Don't we all rely on certain axioms in our lives that do not have "reasons" behind them?

Maybe, maybe not. Religious beliefs aren't axiomatic though. That's just an excuse to make stuff up.

If there's no justifying reason to believe in something, then you shouldn't believe in it. Anything else is self-deception, and I find is sad that some people disingenuously try to defend making stuff up without justifying reasons.

Thanks for the thoughts

 

[variant]

Also the self-negating problem of scientism.

The only problem seems to be that other peoples thinking isn't required to accommodate your make believe.

 

[Received]

Once again, you are trying to label science as a religion in order to make it look bad. What does that say about your beliefs? Why do you never see Sagan trying to make religion look like a science, but you always see religionists trying to make science look like a religion?

Never labeled science as a religion. I said scientism. Which is what Sagan is using, not simply science.

There is no reason why a creator of a universe could not be tested for. None.

I offer a claim with reasoning, and you're like, "nope".

Science is based on verifiable evidence, not faith.

Scientism, not science, see above.

 

[Loudmouth]

Never labeled science as a religion. I said scientism. Which is what Sagan is using, not simply science.

It is exactly what he is using. He is saying that positive claims need positive evidence. That is science.

I find it interesting that you need to denigrate science by trying to make it look like a religion.

I offer a claim with reasoning, and you're like, "nope".

You don't offer a claim with evidence.

 

[Received]

No. It just recognizes that untestable claims about allegedly existing things/entities are, from an epistemological pov, indistiguishable from claims about non-existing things. That´s unfortunate and regrettable, for sure, but that´s the way it is.

Your idea (that you just need to say "supernatural" - i.e. "untestable", "unfalsifiable" - and your claims magically get some truth value bonus points) is absurd.

No magic, logic. See previous post about creators and how this means by definition they can't be constituted of the physical stuff like the creation is, which means the necessity for a "supernatural" (i.e., beyond the natural or physical) realm. Which means any standard that utilizes the physical (science, empiricism, etc.) is misplaced when applying to this supposed supernatural entity.

There are things that can't be "tested" in a scientific or empirical sense which we know to be true if we don't go ultraskeptic and assume the world doesn't exist or that our senses are unsound, etc. You're equating the limitation of knowledge with empiricism, more specifically science. There are other ways of knowing things.

 

[Received]

It is exactly what he is using. He is saying that positive claims need positive evidence. That is science.

I find it interesting that you need to denigrate science by trying to make it look like a religion.

I find it interesting that you find it interesting, of course.

And no, Sagan believes that testability is the limitation of truth and/or knowledge. If you can't test it, throw it to the flames. That's scientism. Period.

You don't offer a claim with evidence.

That actually sounds like you and your as yet rationally or empirically unsupported reason for using the standard you do that we're talking about.

 

[Loudmouth]

No magic, logic. See previous post about creators and how this means by definition they can't be constituted of the physical stuff like the creation is,

We create cars, and we are made up of the same type of stuff that cars are. We create children, and they carry our DNA.

You are completely wrong.

which means the necessity for a "supernatural" (i.e., beyond the natural or physical) realm.

No, it doesn't. There is no reason that our univese can't be a part of a larger natural universe or natural process just as the natural Earth is part of a larger system of natural planets and galaxies.

All you are doing is scrambling for excuses as to why there is no evidence just as it happens in Sagan's essay on invisible fire breathing dragons that live in garages.

There are things that can't be "tested" in a scientific or empirical sense which we know to be true if we don't go ultraskeptic and assume the world doesn't exist or that our senses are unsound, etc.

Such as?

You're equating the limitation of knowledge with empiricism, more specifically science. There are other ways of knowing things.

Name a single time that a belief has become knowledge without evidence being involved.

 

[Received]

Ex nihilo, loudmouth, not ex materia.