Proof???!!!!!

[michabo]

What is the point of two atheist arguing with each other... they are both wrong

There's certainly the chance that I'm wrong about some or most of my claims. By presenting my case vigorously and openly, I hope to lay my thought process bare so that any problems in my thinking get fleshed out and corrected.

If I was uninterested in the truth, I supposed I'd try to shrink my posts down to bumpersticker-size.

 

[thaumaturgy]

What is the point of two atheist arguing with each other... they are both wrong

Lol! Very clever. Very. It's funny to watch. Almost as funny as watching Christians argue amongst each other.

Actually that isn't funny because when Christians argue we end up with lots of blood. Just take the REFORMATION. Or The Albigensian Crusade!

"Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius"

How many people died over competing ideologies? If only someone had been able to prove one side right and the other wrong!

Good times. Good times.

And, just for kicks, how do you prove God's existence, since it is a positive claim, presumably you can prove it, right?

 

[Gary51]

Lol! Very clever. Very. It's funny to watch. Almost as funny as watching Christians argue amongst each other.

Actually that isn't funny because when Christians argue we end up with lots of blood. Just take the REFORMATION. Or The Albigensian Crusade!

"Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius"

How many people died over competing ideologies? If only someone had been able to prove one side right and the other wrong!

Good times. Good times.

And, just for kicks, how do you prove God's existence, since it is a positive claim, presumably you can prove it, right?

Is that why you are an atheist?

 

[DeathMagus]

And I've already said many times that I'm not proving anything, nor do I think that 100% proof is necessary to believe that gods don't exist. So your links come as a non sequitur. We both agree, but they're not relevant.

Proof is never necessary to believe anything. However, to make a claim one must provide ample evidence to support it. The generic idea of a "god" makes absolutely no predictions about anything, and thus lack of evidence for one means nothing. Your claim has no basis in either evidence nor lack of evidence.

True enough, and since the pantheistic god is essentially no god (it's "nature"), we might as well deal with just the deistic god. We're left with no evidence of the deistic god and no plausible mechanism to account for its existence, so disbelief is justified.

Of course - it's justified not to believe in such a god, but that is a far cry from claiming that such a god does not exist.

That's me and I think I've sketched out one way you could go about defending that. Just as long as you recognize that this belief, like any other, cannot be 100% certain.

I'm not so much nitpicking the 100% aspect as I am the inability to acquire evidence against god and the lack of a negative implication given no evidence.

I have two years of formal predicate logic, but have covered fuzzy logic and other systems in my fourth year. I don't think it's especially relevant here and when you bring it up, I have the unpleasant suspicion that you expect things to be proven 100%, deductively, which would be placing a burden of proof higher than any other scientific theory.

Actually, I bring it up because I wish to respect my fellow members on the boards and not insult your intelligence by going over logic 101 when you obviously have a deeper formal training than I do. It's not relevant at all to your argument, but it is relevant to how I phrase my own arguments in response to you.

~Mags

 

[michabo]

But we are discussing the usual interpretation of the Strong Atheist stance. The Strong atheist stance is almost never "It is highly unlikely that there is a God".

I am beginning to understand your stand better in that what you are actually talking around here is a rather measured and reasonable, but weak atheist, type of claim.

You are open that proof could come in and should be considered, but you currently find it highly unlikely that any such proof exists, therefore you feel quite confident in claiming that God does not exist.

I'll leave you to look at the links regarding strong atheism, hopefully that will clear up some misconceptions.

You are right, if I were to be complete, I would say that I am confident but not certain that no gods exist. Because I have some confidence that no gods exist, I say "I believe that gods do not exist." Because I believe that gods don't exist, I'm a strong atheist. I do not think it is necessary to be this complete because this is assumed in discussions of other theories and I see no reason to make an exception here.

And while you've never directly answered, I suspect that you would be able to honestly say exactly the same statements.

 

[Vene]

Is that why you are an atheist?

I know that I am because Christians can't prove the existence of Jehovah. And as I wasn't raised to believe in any other god I have no faith in them either. The only thing that I have anything remotely close to faith in is chaos and confusion.

 

[michabo]

Proof is never necessary to believe anything. However, to make a claim one must provide ample evidence to support it. The generic idea of a "god" makes absolutely no predictions about anything, and thus lack of evidence for one means nothing. Your claim has no basis in either evidence nor lack of evidence.

Well, the term "god" does have some minimal attributes and these are all that I use to argue that it is most probable that gods do not exist. (Just in highlevel terms, gods are not evolved beings, but were created or eternal, but gods are also planning, acting, intelligent beings and so therefore must be ordered and complex. There's no plausible mechanism to arrive at this ordered, complex state without some process of evolution, so while powerful aliens may exist, gods almost certainly do not.)

It seems to me that if you were to try to argue that "god" has no empirical definition at all (incoherent), then the god hypothesis isn't even wrong and this is even better reason to be a strong atheist

Actually, I bring it up because I wish to respect my fellow members on the boards and not insult your intelligence by going over logic 101 when you obviously have a deeper formal training than I do.

Fair enough. I'm sorry if I jumped to the wrong conclusion.

 

[consol]

To even suggest there is a God is plain dishonest,
as dishonest as saying there is a tooth fairy.

 

[Chalnoth]

Tentative disbelief sounds like the colloquial version of "simple unbelief".

Zero evidence merely makes it impossible to reject the null. But since we don't have all data then we can only fail to reject the null with some nearly overwhelming assurity.

Right, well, all I'm saying is that in colloquial language, this means that we can be pretty darned certain that there is no god because there is no evidence of one whatsoever.

 

[DeathMagus]

Well, the term "god" does have some minimal attributes and these are all that I use to argue that it is most probable that gods do not exist. (Just in highlevel terms, gods are not evolved beings, but were created or eternal, but gods are also planning, acting, intelligent beings and so therefore must be ordered and complex. There's no plausible mechanism to arrive at this ordered, complex state without some process of evolution, so while powerful aliens may exist, gods almost certainly do not.)

I suppose since most modern concepts of god include some measure of omnipotence (over laws of physics, anyway), using the laws of physics to argue against a god who can break the laws of physics is a strange concept to me.

It seems to me that if you were to try to argue that "god" has no empirical definition at all (incoherent), then the god hypothesis isn't even wrong and this is even better reason to be a strong atheist

Almost. Mostly, since most religious define God as being beyond the laws of this existence, I feel they've effectively defended themselves against arguments of the "God violates the universe" type. (Isn't it nasty how they try to define all the terms so as to make rational debate impossible?) How do you get past this quandary?

Fair enough. I'm sorry if I jumped to the wrong conclusion.

Not a problem - my apologies if I came off as condescending.

 

[Opethian]

Who here is a strong aflyingspaghettimonsterist and who here is a weak aflyingspaghettimonsterist?

 

[michabo]

I suppose since most modern concepts of god include some measure of omnipotence (over laws of physics, anyway), using the laws of physics to argue against a god who can break the laws of physics is a strange concept to me.

Even assuming that there was some reason to think omnipotence was possible or plausible, it doesn't address the question of God's existence. Saying God is omnipotent doesn't explain how God exists in the first place, since a god cannot create itself.

Almost. Mostly, since most religious define God as being beyond the laws of this existence, I feel they've effectively defended themselves against arguments of the "God violates the universe" type. (Isn't it nasty how they try to define all the terms so as to make rational debate impossible?) How do you get past this quandary?

They're free to say whatever they wish, but why should we believe them? They have the responsibility to present an argument to show that this is possible and plausible but they just have assertions.

 

[consol]

Even assuming that there was some reason to think omnipotence was possible or plausible, it doesn't address the question of God's existence. Saying God is omnipotent doesn't explain how God exists in the first place, since a god cannot create itself.

Exactly.

They're free to say whatever they wish, but why should we believe them? They have the responsibility to present an argument to show that this is possible and plausible but they just have assertions.

And they will not, because they can not.

Put simply, a God like love, is all in the mind, and like love, a God is an EMOTION, nothing more.

 

[tanzanos]

Atheism is for the atheist a logical deduction and conclusion. It is not faith based, nor is it some religious belief.
The need for some people to believe in a higher authority be it God or some despot results in their inability to accept the notion of atheism as a logical conclusion.

Superstitious beliefs (all religions) are not scientifically accepted as proof of any deity. Thus it is science that governs part or all of the reasons one claims to be atheistic.

 

[Chalnoth]

I suppose since most modern concepts of god include some measure of omnipotence (over laws of physics, anyway), using the laws of physics to argue against a god who can break the laws of physics is a strange concept to me.

Nah, makes perfect sense when you observe that if anything existed that could break the laws of physics, then we would expect to see the laws of physics broken, or at least be unable to determine what the laws of physics were. The fact that we can determine what the laws of physics are, and have never observed them broken, is evidence against any such entity.

Almost. Mostly, since most religious define God as being beyond the laws of this existence, I feel they've effectively defended themselves against arguments of the "God violates the universe" type. (Isn't it nasty how they try to define all the terms so as to make rational debate impossible?) How do you get past this quandary?

One can also make good use of Occam's Razor to show that any such thing is horribly unlikely.

Or, similarly, if one is attempting to use such an omnipotent being to explain a particular fact (e.g. existence, life, morality, us), then one finds that when one uses an omnipotent being to do the explaining, the explanation actually turns out to be more complex than that which is explained, making it far more likely that the event in question just happened than God having done it.

 

[Gary51]

I know that I am because Christians can't prove the existence of Jehovah. And as I wasn't raised to believe in any other god I have no faith in them either. The only thing that I have anything remotely close to faith in is chaos and confusion.

You only believe in chaos and confusion.... Now we're getting somewhere... you have admitted to being confused. That is the first step in ridding you mind of the chaos in it.

It may take you some time... but at least you have realised your problem.

 

[Gary51]

To even suggest there is a God is plain dishonest,
as dishonest as saying there is a tooth fairy.

Do you have children?

 

[Chalnoth]

Do you have children?

What does having children have to do with the existence or non-existence of any deity?

 

[Chalnoth]

You only believe in chaos and confusion.... Now we're getting somewhere... you have admitted to being confused. That is the first step in ridding you mind of the chaos in it.

It may take you some time... but at least you have realised your problem.

You would do well to not assume the beliefs of others.

 

[Gary51]

You would do well to not assume the beliefs of others.

I have quoted what someone has claimed.