Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No IMO you would not assert them but you would not deny them either. After all in the absence relevant evidence why make a claim (there are no snorgalumps) or assume this on grounds of parsimony when it is simpler to remain noncommittal either way as regards to +s or -s.I take it to mean, "Don't assume that a particular thing exists unless there is no other option."
I mean, by taking it to mean that we shouldn't assume the non-existence of things, I can use Occam's razor as a basis for my belief in snorgalumps. And, by extension, I can use Occam's Razor in this way to show that an infinite number of things exist.
Fair enough. But you don't believe they don't exist too, right? It seems that non religious people are biased in favour of the former (as you express it) rather than the other side of the equation. Why dont they say "the simplest explanation is to lack belief in the non-existence of God" ever?
I am sure that some negatives are provable, like my socks are not pink.
But you lack belief in "god", obviously, but do you lack belief in "no god" also. Your use of simplicity seems to be biased in favour of rejecting belief in God, rather than rejecting belief in 'there is no God' too. But in the absence of evidence shouldnt your lack of belief equally cover both cases,.
You said you 'do not have to assert theism is necessarily false' but what about instead of asserting such, what about merely lacking belief that theism is necessarily false? I hear SOOOOO MUCH about lacking belief in God, but hardly anything about lacking belief that there is no God. But aren't both equalty parsimonious?
Atheists might say 3 is the simpler option but is 4 not as simple, but in fact rarely discussed or overtly stated as rational or parsimonious as 3?
No IMO you would not assert them but you would not deny them either. After all in the absence relevant evidence why make a claim (there are no snorgalumps) or assume this on grounds of parsimony when it is simpler to remain noncommittal either way as regards to +s or -s.
Ok cool. Its not an anti anti anti theistic bias than (or something long winded like that)?I suspect because that is a long-winded way of putting it.
That seems to be hyper skepticism. Under those rules its difficult to reason about anything, negatives, positives or whatever at all.Not even then. Every piece of evidence you advance for your socks not being pink may be flawed.
1)
Gb (believe G)
2)
-Gb (believe not God)
...theism (1) and strong atheism (2).
Than one can
3)
G-b (lack belief in God, weak athesism)
and finally
4)
-G-b (lack belief there is no God, what I call "an-atheism").
Thats the bit I dont fully understand. I dont see why God exists (or the moon exists), is less preferable a priori then God doesnt exist (or the moon doesnt exist).3 and 4 are also not equivalently parsimonious because positive positions without evidence are inherently more complicated.
Thats the bit I dont fully understand. I dont see why God exists (or the moon exists), is less preferable a priori then God doesnt exist (or the moon doesnt exist).
Or that lacking belief in God (or the moon) is to be preferable to lacking belief in not-God (or not-moon).
that is complicated but I can respect it fully. For the time being. Either I will explode thinking or something. Anyway ty for the thoughts.Since God is not in evidence lack of belief in it's absence is more complicated because you have to explain why there is no evidence.
No IMO you would not assert them but you would not deny them either. After all in the absence relevant evidence why make a claim (there are no snorgalumps) or assume this on grounds of parsimony when it is simpler to remain noncommittal either way as regards to +s or -s.
Sure, depending on the definition of "snorgalumps". I have not come across the term before. Why should I either assert or deny their existence if I do not even know what I am talking about?Growing Smaller, it seems that you have missed my last post, #24.
Here it is again for you.
Wait...
So you are telling me that you actually think Snorgalumps might exist...?
Wouldnt the best conclusion if there is no evidence, be strong atheism.? I mean if you were expecting to find some that is... Otherwise, why would the absence need explaining?
WHich I suppose is to say that God makes no known practical difference to the world, if we cannot know him though realised effects. Which lends support to Deism (if we are to keep a God at all).Well here is where we get to the point that theists have defined God in an unfalsifiable manner.
Meaning that we would never find evidence that directly contradicts God if none exists.
I am not sure that negatives are so difficult to prove. After al a positive (P) is a negation of (-P). So the negative -(-P) is proven if we can prove P. But maybe that's the wrong way of conceptualising the situation.This makes it extraordinarily hard to show positively or claim that God doesn't exist. What you would have to know to know a God doesn't exist anywhere in any form is remarkably complicated, as are proving negatives in general.
Ok so I still think that we can demonstrate a negative eif the criterion is well established. Like "there are no horses on the stable", it is easy to demonstrate either way. It is whether the situation and criterion as srictly defined without loopholes. If we say "God responds to prayer" and make the null hypothesis zero variation in heart disease rates across groups, then according to the definition there is no response in that case. I think, if I have the terminology ("null hypothesis") right. So we have the operational definition of intervention, and if anything can be deduced from the results then so be it.Which is why proving negatives is usually not required when we talk about burdens of proof. We lay them on the positive claim.
Only where evidence would be expected.You are right however that the simplest explanation for the lack of evidence is that God doesn't exist.
No, there is a logical difference. See 1, 2, 3 and 4 above.The difference between strong and weak atheism is how conclusive you feel about it.
Only within a certain hyothetico deductive setting. Where we definitively expect evidence.And, I have shown you why the agnostic theist position has to explain this lack of evidence away (making it a more complex position).
WHich I suppose is to say that God makes no known practical difference to the world, if we cannot know him though realised effects. Which lends support to Deism (if we are to keep a God at all).
I am not sure that negatives are so difficult to prove. After al a positive (P) is a negation of (-P). So the negative -(-P) is proven if we can prove P. But maybe that's the wrong way of conceptualising the situation.
Ok so I still think that we can demonstrate a negative eif the criterion is well established. Like "there are no horses on the stable", it is easy to demonstrate either way. It is whether the situation and criterion as srictly defined without loopholes. If we say "God responds to prayer" and make the null hypothesis zero variation in heart disease rates across groups, then according to the definition there is no response in that case. I think, if I have the terminology ("null hypothesis") right. So we have the operational definition of intervention, and if anything can be deduced from the results then so be it.
Only where evidence would be expected.
No, there is a logical difference. See 1, 2, 3 and 4 above.
Only within a certain hyothetico deductive setting. Where we definitively expect evidence.
I think it might be possible not to prove God but to have an epiphany, like Coleridge or Rousseau, or more conventional saints, which is not scientific, nor replicable, but demonstration inwardly. At least it is an empirical (experiential) basis for conviction.It's more than that. I am saying that there is virtually no possible state of affairs that could disprove God's existence or count as conclusive evidence that no Gods exist.
I dont see why...Maybe if something is by nature unfalsifiable scientifically then its just hard luck for the scientists who cannot be omniscient. Who said that everything has to be falsifiable. There could easily be interacting dark particles, or higher dimensions of space which we will never be able to test for, and that's mainstream physics I think. Ok it blurrs into philosophy but that does not imply it is therefore a pipe dream.Defining God in an unfalsifiable manner requires more skepticism not less.
I am not adding. I am just saying I don't deny them or assert them. Refrain from belief both ways. And lack belief in both options too. Maybe this stuff exists. Auto-skepticism seems to be a knee jerk response, a leap of faithlessness perhaps? Or is it what I am advocating?Adding in unfalsifiable beings are definitely NOT the best recourse of explanation according to Occam.
That has been acknowledged but I say dont add them. Lack belief in their presense, but also their absence. I am still not convinced the latter is more "complicated" because "a lack of belief in absence of unfalsifiable entities" needs more explaining.All they do is add complexity and not usually much actual explanation (the ability to predict things).
So you're not a scientific realist then? (scientific realism is an unfalsifiable metaphysical position IIRC). It can be justified in terms of coherence, consistency, analogy, abduction and induction though. So unfalsifiable claims are not all justified by sophistry IMO. I am not saying Theology ticks all of these boxes, but it may mark some of them. For me it boils down in part, in the last anaylsis, to something akin to reading the tea leaves, these things become so blurred and sketchy. At which for me it is time to settle down and drink the tea of existence with a little sense of mystery. And perhaps try a different brand or too as I sojourn.Indeed an unfalsifiable being adds no explanation power to your philosophy, it just degrades you into sophism.
I think it might be possible not to prove God but to have an epiphany, like Coleridge or Rousseau, or more conventional saints, which is not scientific, nor replicable, but demonstration inwardly. At least it is an empirical (experiential) basis for conviction.
IIRC Hegel summed up Romanticism as absolute inwardness.
Of course reason has been contrasted with emotion, but I think that emotion is an important part of cognition - otherwise why would it be naturally selected if it caused us to stray all the time? Maybe the capacity for religious experience is a spandrel, or maybe it is functional in some way but not veridical. Or maybe it indicates something beyond reliably. If it is caused by God, and it increases belief in the subject, then could the experience not be regarded as potentially "rational" justification, just as burning ones hand in fire is rational justification for something out there exists. God is one possible explanation for the gravitiational anomolies (cf dark matter) of religious experience.
"They're brain malfunction" is an assertion, and potentially true, but can you falsify that claim?
I dont see why...Maybe if something is by nature unfalsifiable scientifically then its just hard luck for the scientists who cannot be omniscient. Who said that everything has to be falsifiable. There could easily be interacting dark particles, or higher dimensions of space which we will never be able to test for, and that's mainstream physics I think. Ok it blurrs into philosophy but that does not imply it is therefore a pipe dream.
Maybe if something is by nature unfalsifiable scientifically then its just hard luck for the scientists who cannot be omniscient
I am not adding. I am just saying I don't deny them or assert them. Refrain from belief both ways. And lack belief in both options too. Maybe this stuff exists. Auto-skepticism seems to be a knee jerk response, a leap of faithlessness perhaps? Or is it what I am advocating?
That has been acknowledged but I say dont add them. Lack belief in their presense, but also their absence. I am still not convinced the latter is more "complicated" because "a lack of belief in absence of unfalsifiable entities" needs more explaining.
So you're not a scientific realist then? (scientific realism is an unfalsifiable metaphysical position IIRC). It can be justified in terms of coherence, consistency, analogy, abduction and induction though. So unfalsifiable claims are not all justified by sophistry IMO. I am not saying Theology ticks all of these boxes, but it may mark some of them. For me it boils down in part, in the last anaylsis, to something akin to reading the tea leaves, these things become so blurred and sketchy. At which for me it is time to settle down and drink the tea of existence with a little sense of mystery. And perhaps try a different brand or too as I sojourn.
Sure, depending on the definition of "snorgalumps". I have not come across the term before. Why should I either assert or deny their existence if I do not even know what I am talking about?
3)
G-b (lack belief in God, weak athesism)
and finally
4)
-G-b (lack belief there is no God, what I call "an-atheism").
Atheists might say 3 is the simpler option but is 4 not as simple, but in fact rarely discussed or overtly stated as rational or parsimonious as 3?
Tiberius you seem to be missing my point. I agree with what you imply my attitude ought to be, I dont say they dont exist. Is that fair enough and reasonable?Why does that matter? You said in your opening post that we shouldn't posit the non-existence of things without need. That's gotta include Snorgalumps. So why should you posit that Snorgalumps don't exist unless you need to?Sure, depending on the definition of "snorgalumps". I have not come across the term before. Why should I either assert or deny their existence if I do not even know what I am talking about?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?