Proof???!!!!!

[thaumaturgy]

Oh, this is solid gold!

And what? An SA's icon is darker than a WA's?

Look at Nr. 2 --- which sentence then is more correct:

1. There is no reason to believe God exists, therefore God exists.
2. There is no reason to believe God exists, therefore God doesn't exist.

(And to those of you who answer with, "Neither, we hold our decision in abeyance until further evidence," you're gonna get a Bible verse.)

If you see an error in what I wrote, please present it.

I think I have laid this out quite clearly and in a form that can be understood.

 

[michabo]

Respectfully disagree.

Clearly. I hope you'll offer more of an argument than that...

But indeed I think the religious have a bit of a "chink in the armor" if they see a claim that is, by definition, a universal negative statement.

Exactly. You're changing your standards based on the impression that it makes on theists, and not based on truth or reality.

But if we tell the theists that we simply accept the claim positively then we open it up to criticism on this point.

So what does it matter? They're going to criticize you anyways, that's no reason to weaken your standards.

I tend to prefer to limit the debate to "Weak Atheism" since I know that can be defended no matter how "nit-picky" the theist.

That's fine. I think you're being a little dishonest with yourself but I can understand the motivation. Still, that's not excuse for trying to say that strong atheism is indefensible when it is not.

I start with the NULL HYPOTHESIS: "There is no god". [...]

As such I am a weak atheist because I see no reason to reject the null. In a sense it leaves open the possibility that should a theist ever step up to the plate and provide data sufficient to overcome a reasonable alpha level, it could be reconsidered.

That's fine. If you want to consider yourself a weak atheist and treat God as something like a black swan which could easily exist but you just don't have the evidence, that's fine. I very much doubt that you have no opinion on this issue, but you've said why you aren't willing to take a stand.

Since I have not seen all of the universe nor can I I will have to stay a "weak atheist".

Tell me that you think there's a good possibility that gods can exist, but you just have no evidence of their existence.

And then, unless you've got an argument against strong atheism, please stop saying it's logically indefensible.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Strong vs Weak Atheism (Wikipedia)

 

[AV1611VET]

If you see an error in what I wrote, please present it.

I think I have laid this out quite clearly and in a form that can be understood.

I'm one step ahead of you, sir --- q.v. Post 79.

In addition, your list contains serious flaws --- of which I won't elaborate.

 

[michabo]

Strong vs Weak Atheism (Wikipedia)

And where does it say anything which could justify your claims that strong atheism is indefensible?

 

[consol]

I have written this or something like it at least 10 times.

There is not a single Christian or creationists on this forum that was or will admit to being indoctrinated,
EVERY one of them, EVERY LAST ONE, found their God by their own efforts,
most of them would have us believe they did not know there was a God until they were in their teens,
and half of them had Atheists for parents,
and most claim to have read about other religions before they decided to go with Christianity,
and they ALL went with Christianity because, IT MADE SENSE,
the reason why the belief in creationism: Evolution could not be proved, but creationism could.

Did you not read my post?... #44

Why do you repete youself?

Yes I read post #44, that's why I wrote the above,
because you and EVERY other religious person on this forum say the same thing,
you are all self taught Christians, not one of you were brain washed. Try pulling the other one.
you are all religious because you were raised to be religious, and it had nothing to do with you.

People only believe in religion because they were raised in religion or have a NEED for religion,
no one would turn to religion just to have something to do, religion is about filling a need,
no need, no religion. Do you have a need??

 

[thaumaturgy]

That's fine. I think you're being a little dishonest with yourself but I can understand the motivation. Still, that's not excuse for trying to say that strong atheism is indefensible when it is not.

Here's a reasonable summary of the thought process:

• Atheism positively affirms that there is no God. But can the atheist be certain of this claim? You see, to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge you would have to have simultaneous access to all parts of the universe (omnipresence). Therefore, as an atheist, to be certain of this claim you would have to possess Godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind’s limited nature precludes these special abilities. The atheist’s dogmatic claim is therefore clearly unjustifiable. The atheist is attempting to prove a universal negative. In terms of logic this is called a logical fallacy.” (quoted from The Free Mind: The Newsletter and Forum of the University of Minnesota Atheists and Humanists 2(7), May/June 1996.)

While you may feel I am being dishonest with myself, indeed you cannot claim God does not exist unless you can see all the universe in totality simultaneously at all points.

That's fine. If you want to consider yourself a weak atheist and treat God as something like a black swan which could easily exist but you just don't have the evidence, that's fine. I very much doubt that you have no opinion on this issue, but you've said why you aren't willing to take a stand.

I most assuredly did not say I wasn't willing to take a stand.

I am sorry this is problematic. Unfortunately since I need to make my living by some adherence to strict formalisms of hypothesis testing I am limited to this point.

I may have many opinions, but I must limit the discussion to only those which I can defend.

If you feel you can defend the statement "There is no God" I will have to ask you to prove that, since that is a positive claim.

Tell me that you think there's a good possibility that gods can exist, but you just have no evidence of their existence.

As I said earlier, based on my experience I have no reason to believe God exists. That is a perfectly defensible position. I don't have to prove anything of the sort that would require me to have seen and experienced the entirety of the universe.

Again, this is simply how I do my job, and it is simply the only way to make a defensible claim.

And then, unless you've got an argument against strong atheism, please stop saying it's logically indefensible.

Then please do prove the claim.

Clearly we disagree on this point and I would gladly welcome any discussion you might put forward about how a universal negative claim such as this can be defended.

I am not saying it is wrong, I am merely pointing out that logically it cannot be a defensible stance. Not that you shouldn't have it. It is your perogative, but if you want to debate with a theist can always retreat to the "well unless you know everything you could be wrong!"

I am a bit more conservative in my hypothesis test.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I'm just curious...how did Bahai' come off the top of your head faster than Islam, Buddhism, etc? No offense to them, but they tend to get much less press and recognition, and I wouldn't think they'd be in the first three religions to come to mind.

It's a strange word so my brain tends to drift over to it when composing lists like this.

Just a cross-firing of my neurons.

 

[AV1611VET]

To attain this knowledge you would have to have simultaneous access to all parts of the universe (omnipresence).

... indeed you cannot claim God does not exist unless you can see all the universe in totality simultaneously at all points.

How would that answer it?

Since God is transcendent, He is outside of His creation.

 

[Gary51]

Gary, nice to meet you, my brother; but I respectfully disagree --- on a technicality.

I find it hard to believe anyone in the past would believe the earth is flat (although some did).

Why is it no one ever complained that they would fall off the earth going north and south?

I can see, if they just looked east and west, over the ocean, but to think that you'll fall off the earth because it's flat, then plan a trip more than 30 miles north, is hypocritical.

Basically, all one would have to do is walk 30 miles in each direction, and he would know that the earth is not flat.

This flat earth stuff is junk science --- not junk theology.

I think that you are missing the point. Remember who we are talking to here.... atheists.

They believe in evolution... so they believe in primitive man. And primitive man would have seen the Earth as flat.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Don't think you're exempt from this --- just because you're an atheist.

The Bible exposes your atheism as a form of worship.

Stop lying, AV.

 

[michabo]

While you may feel I am being dishonest with myself, indeed you cannot claim God does not exist unless you can see all the universe in totality simultaneously at all points.

Which is complete nonsense.

Con you say that there is no half-horse, half-eagle? Of course! You don't have to search the entire universe or claim total knowledge or any other drek that that awful quote implied. You merely have to say "there is no evidence" and then say "all the evidence shows this animal cannot evolve." The absence of evidence in conjunction with good reason to disbelief is sufficient. Are you open to new evidence? Of course you are. Do you say "100% certainty"? No, but then you wouldn't say "100% certainty" for gravity. These absurdly high requirements are demands of theists trying to carve out a gap for their god and are found in no other area.

So with god, we have plenty of absence of evidence which, for virtually all gods (except the deistic and pantheistic) is evidence of absence. Combine that with the many positive arguments for their nonexistence (incoherence, complexity, inconsistence, suffering, etc.) and you have a compelling argument for their non-existence.

Even without considering positive arguments against a god's existence, I would say that without some compelling argument to show that a god could exist, it is not rational to be a weak atheist. A lack of an argument for their possible existence combined with an absence of evidence for their existence is sufficient reason to disbelieve that they exist. And that, in essence, is strong atheism.

If you feel you can defend the statement "There is no God" I will have to ask you to prove that, since that is a positive claim.

I hope I've presented a couple arguments above.

I suspect that you're falling for the special pleading which theists always make, that we need to disprove the existence of their god else we should not disbelief. That's wrong, we should believe there is no god until we have (a) reason to believe gods could exist and (b) reason to believe gods really do exist. They haven't met either condition.

Clearly we disagree on this point and I would gladly welcome any discussion you might put forward about how a universal negative claim such as this can be defended.

I think I've said this before, but I think you are acting like disbelief in a god is indefensible unless you can be 100% certain which is wrong, that standard isn't anywhere else in science.

It is your perogative, but if you want to debate with a theist can always retreat to the "well unless you know everything you could be wrong!"

Which is a stupid thing for them to say and they should be told how stupid it is. I've no problem doing that. Might as well confront all of their unjustified beliefs, especially the idea that they cannot disbelieve without being omniscient.

 

[Chalnoth]

I really find the argument that atheism is irrational funny when coming from a Christian. At least it's an honest argument when it comes from a weak atheist. But when a Christian makes it, I can't help but think, "So, let me get this straight. There is no evidence that God exists. And you're trying to tell me that therefore the parsimonious conclusion is that the god of the Bible exists, has Jesus as a son, and you need to believe in him or go to hell?"

 

[Split Rock]

...

 

[thaumaturgy]

Which is complete nonsense.

Sorry you feel that way. This is, unfortunately, the outcome of my being a professional scientist and having spent a lot of time trying to get the logic formalism down.

No one is ever required to prove a negative. That's just Logic 101.

I agree most people colloquially defend universal negatives all the time.

Con you say that there is no half-horse, half-eagle? Of course!

Sorry, maybe I took too many philosophy, logic and science classes. I am unable to make claims like that. If I did I should hope my fellow scientists would tell me this is a logic fallacy.

You don't have to search the entire universe or claim total knowledge or any other drek that that awful quote implied.

No offense here, Michabo, I like your posts usually, but you are backing a dog on this one. Please point out to me where in any logic textbook you can "prove a negative".

Maybe I've missed something, but I have always thought that was a glaring logic fallacy.

You merely have to say "there is no evidence" and then say "all the evidence shows this animal cannot evolve."

This is what I mean by rejecting the null hypothesis. If the animal can reasonably be expected to not evolve it would be irrational to assume it exists until proven not to exist. Because you can never prove it does not exist.

Again, this is just Logic 101.

The absence of evidence in conjunction with good reason to disbelief is sufficient.

And there you have made my point. Sufficient does not mean absolute. It is sufficient for me to claim there is no reason to believe God exists.

I am making no claims I cannot support.

Are you open to new evidence? Of course you are. Do you say "100% certainty"? No,

Agreed! The key is that a claim "There is no God" is a 100% claim. It does not leave any room for new evidence.

While I am quite sure you are open to new evidence and you are willing to consider the information put out there, you are using the phrase "There is no God" colloquially in which you are merely staking your claim that you, too, have failed to reject the null.

I am merely outlining the debate with theists such that I can make a defensible claim that they cannot assail easily. The minute I introduce, even by mistaken use of colloqialisms and "informal speech", a logic fallacy, is the minute I open the debate up to my failure.

Again, I don't know what your logic, philosophy, statistics or science background is. Unfortunately it is very necessary and perhaps overly pedantic but still required, in order to do a thorough job of it.

but then you wouldn't say "100% certainty" for gravity. These absurdly high requirements are demands of theists trying to carve out a gap for their god and are found in no other area.

I don't care what the theists on this board think about this stuff. Frankly few of them seem to have any background or ability to debate it effectively. What I do care about is logic formalism.

So with god, we have plenty of absence of evidence which, for virtually all gods (except the deistic and pantheistic) is evidence of absence. Combine that with the many positive arguments for their nonexistence (incoherence, complexity, inconsistence, suffering, etc.) and you have a compelling argument for their non-existence.

Now we're getting somewhere. Indeed I reject the ontological argument predicated on Kant's objection about "existence" as a predicate, and I further reject it because it requires, at least informally, that "that being than which none-greater-can-be-conceived can become quickly an inherently illogical being (all just and all merciful). Not that the second point is absolutely required.

But what I am doing here is being as clear and clean as possible with the debate. If it is limited to nearly perfectly defined terms we can keep it from going off the rails and into pure "feelings" and "opinions".

I suspect that you're falling for the special pleading which theists always make, that we need to disprove the existence of their god else

No, I came to my atheism through a lot of work. It is not a comment against theists, it is not "falling for" any of their logic fallacies (and most on this board do drift off to those weeds pretty fast), it is because I have thought through my stance. I have worked very hard to develop a stance that can stand up to much stronger fare than what is offered on here.

My atheism is a bit more grounded than that.

we should not disbelief. That's wrong, we should believe there is no god until we have (a) reason to believe gods could exist and (b) reason to believe gods really do exist. They haven't met either condition.

And what you have lined out here is effectively weak atheism in broader terms.

Null: There is no God

The only thing you can do is REJECT the NULL or FAIL TO REJECT THE NULL.

I have failed to reject the null.

That is all I can do.

I think I've said this before, but I think you are acting like disbelief in a god is indefensible unless you can be 100% certain which is wrong, that standard isn't anywhere else in science.

As outlined above science only works when strict formalisms are adhered to. Indeed many scientists do conduct their work less pedantically, but it is really the core of experimental science.

Here's a couple links to Hypothesis Testing

Statistics Glossary
Wolfram
Statistics Solutions

I hope I have stated this clearly. I see no problem with you making your claim, I just think it is relatively clearly a logic fallacy, but I also see from what you have actually said here, that you are not actually backing a pure strong atheist claim.

I hope I have made my side of the argument clear.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

While you may feel I am being dishonest with myself, indeed you cannot claim God does not exist unless you can see all the universe in totality simultaneously at all points.

Not true. In addition to what Michabo said, contradictions cannot exist. If an atheist thinks he can show that "God" is contradictory or otherwise logically unfeasible, he or she is justified in making a positive claim.

An example of something that cannot logically exist is the Invisible Pink Unicorn, because it is a contradiction in terms (visible vs ~visible).

 

[AV1611VET]

Wow --- all this arguing over nothing.

Must be something to it, eh?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Not true. In addition to what Michabo said, contradictions cannot exist. If an atheist thinks he can show that "God" is contradictory or otherwise logically unfeasible, he or she is justified in making a positive claim.

As I stated earlier, I will gladly acqiuesce that an inherently self-contradictory thing cannot exist.

But that is not the only definition of God. (It certainly underlays most poorly constructed versions of God, but not a necessary antecedent to something being God).

 

[thaumaturgy]

Wow --- all this arguing over nothing.

Must be something to it, eh?

Sorry, AV, I know this is probably boring to you, what with detail and formal logic. Please bear with while we discuss this.

Here, have a sucker, sit in the corner and enjoy. Would you like a "Highlights" magazine?

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, AV, I know this is probably boring to you, what with detail and formal logic. Please bear with while we discuss this.

Here, have a sucker, sit in the corner and enjoy. Would you like a "Highlights" magazine?

I Kant read.