What would it take to disprove atheism?

[UnReAL13]

I didn't realize Atheism had been "proven" by anyone. I think the OP is referring to Strong or Gnostic Atheism, which is equally as unjustifiable as Gnostic Theism. There has to be some kind of evidence to verify either end of the spectrum.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

I didn't realize Atheism had been "proven" by anyone. I think the OP is referring to Strong or Gnostic Atheism, which is equally as unjustifiable as Gnostic Theism. There has to be some kind of evidence to verify either end of the spectrum.

"Gnostic" atheism and "gnostic" theism are not equally unjustifiable.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I didn't realize Atheism had been "proven" by anyone. I think the OP is referring to Strong or Gnostic Atheism, which is equally as unjustifiable as Gnostic Theism. There has to be some kind of evidence to verify either end of the spectrum.

Even that I'd dispute.

Think about it, is the belief that leprechauns don't exist on equal footing with the belief that leprechauns do exist?

You're missing the distinction between holding a belief and claiming absolute certainty. I'd say given the available evidence, it's reasonable to believe gods are man-made inventions/ideas.

And while it may be true that we can't claim absolute certainty a god doesn't exist, that only goes as far as also not being able to claim absolute certainty that leprechauns don't exist either.

If you feel justified in believing leprechauns don't exist, then the same can be said for a god claim as well (provided you're shown equal evidence for both claims, which has been the case for me).

 

[UnReAL13]

Even that I'd dispute.

Think about it, is the belief that leprechauns don't exist on equal footing with the belief that leprechauns do exist?

You're missing the distinction between holding a belief and claiming absolute certainty. I'd say given the available evidence, it's reasonable to believe gods are man-made inventions/ideas.

And while it may be true that we can't claim absolute certainty a god doesn't exist, that only goes as far as also not being able to claim absolute certainty that leprechauns don't exist either.

If you feel justified in believing leprechauns don't exist, then the same can be said for a god claim as well (provided you're shown equal evidence for both claims, which has been the case for me).

Gnostic Atheism implies that someone has investigated any possibility for a claim about god and concluded that none exist. So it might actually be even more unjustifiable than Gnostic Theism, where you'd just have to verify that at least one of those possibilities is an actuality.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Gnostic Atheism implies that someone has investigated any possibility for a claim about god and concluded that none exist. So it might actually be even more unjustifiable than Gnostic Theism, where you'd just have to verify that at least one of those possibilities is an actuality.

Are you suggesting that knowledge claims require absolute certainty in order to be justified?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Gnostic Atheism implies that someone has investigated any possibility for a claim about god and concluded that none exist. So it might actually be even more unjustifiable than Gnostic Theism, where you'd just have to verify that at least one of those possibilities is an actuality.

You're again missing the distinction between belief and absolute certainty.

 

[Aldebaran]

You're again missing the distinction between belief and absolute certainty.

Belief would require "beyond a reasonable doubt", or at the very least, "good enough to be worth considering".

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Belief would require "beyond a reasonable doubt", or at the very least, "good enough to be worth considering".

Birth of the Universe : unification, spacetime foam, quantum vacuum, quantum fluctuations


Physics of the early Universe is at the boundary of astronomy and philosophy since we do not currently have a complete theory that unifies all the fundamental forces of Nature at the moment of Creation. In addition, there is no possibility of linking observation or experimentation of early Universe physics to our theories (i.e. it's not possible to `build' another Universe). Our theories are rejected or accepted based on simplicity and aesthetic grounds, plus their power of prediction to later times, rather than an appeal to empirical results. This is a very difference way of doing science from previous centuries of research.

 

[parsley]

I haven't read the thread, sorry (beyond 11 pp. now) -- but it seems like an offensive question. Athiesm is a personal belief, an understanding of the world, and not something that is up for approval or disapproval. It's the way some people perceive the world.

I am a Christian, was not always a Christian; but would have been very put off by someone set out to tell me I was wrong. A right answer (to my "wrong" thoughts ) certainly would not have been a draw.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Belief would require "beyond a reasonable doubt", or at the very least, "good enough to be worth considering".

Exactly

 

[VProud]

"Gnostic" atheism and "gnostic" theism are not equally unjustifiable.

Why not?

(A + B) - 2 = X

To assert X = 4

OR

To assert X =/= 4 are equally as unjustifiable to me.

While X could literally be an infinite amount of numbers other than 4, (and yes, that would, by the laws of probability lead to the absolute conclusion that x =/= 4.) we can tell that doesn't work, since X could be 4.
This is because probability does not account for variable in an infinite set, but, you are looking for a specific number other than 4 in this case. By the laws of probability, that is also certainly not the case. (Yes, I know that's not mathematically so sound, but think of the concept here, not the mathematics. )
Until we have some evidence that would directly contradict the existence of a God-Like being, I would say it is absurd to claim it does not exist, for a fact.
They are both equally unjustifiable, because they are both TOTALLY unjustifiable.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I haven't read the thread, sorry (beyond 11 pp. now) -- but it seems like an offensive question. Athiesm is a personal belief, an understanding of the world, and not something that is up for approval or disapproval. It's the way some people perceive the world.

I am a Christian, was not always a Christian; but would have been very put off by someone set out to tell me I was wrong. A right answer (to my "wrong" thoughts ) certainly would not have been a draw.

Well, in fairness, atheism isn't technically a "belief" at all, it's the null hypothesis, the condition you're in when you have not been convinced that a god exists.

That being said however.... If atheism was a belief it wouldn't be offensive at all to challenge it, in fact I'd welcome the challenge. If someone can challenge my beliefs and show I am not justified in holding those beliefs, I would thank them. They've made my understanding of the world around me all the more accurate and real.

That's just plain intellectual honesty, it's also the only way to act if you really care what is true and what isn't. There's nothing more pathetic than someone who puts the blinders on and plugs their ears when you have them backed into the corner in a debate.

If you're not prepared to put your beliefs to the challenge, and abandon them if they don't stand up to that challenge, then you are not an intellectually honest person. It doesn't matter if you're a theist, or an atheist.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Why not?

(A + B) - 2 = X

To assert X = 4

OR

To assert X =/= 4 are equally as unjustifiable to me.

While X could literally be an infinite amount of numbers other than 4, (and yes, that would, by the laws of probability lead to the absolute conclusion that x =/= 4.) we can tell that doesn't work, since X could be 4.
This is because probability does not account for variable in an infinite set, but, you are looking for a specific number other than 4 in this case. By the laws of probability, that is also certainly not the case. (Yes, I know that's not mathematically so sound, but think of the concept here, not the mathematics. )
Until we have some evidence that would directly contradict the existence of a God-Like being, I would say it is absurd to claim it does not exist, for a fact.
They are both equally unjustifiable, because they are both TOTALLY unjustifiable.

Your flaw is that you're starting from the position that it's a 50/50 likelihood that god does, or doesn't exist. That is simply not the case.

 

[VProud]

Your flaw is that you're starting from the position that it's a 50/50 likelihood that god does, or doesn't exist. That is simply not the case.

No, that's exactly what I was trying to explain.

There are infinite more numbers than 4, so 4 has a probability of 0.
However, in this case, there has to be a specific alternative, and any specific number has a probability of 0.
So, the sum of all specific non-4 probabilities is also 0.

The fact that it is no 50% likely only really works in a finite set. Of course, you are right in terms of mathematics.

I was just trying to show how probability does not work well for things like this.

Anyway, I agree, that the most sensible thing is to claim that it is 'unlikely', but to claim that it is 'absolutely not' is just as absurd, because it's 'maximally' absurd. If you know what I mean?

 

[Dave Ellis]

No, that's exactly what I was trying to explain.

There are infinite more numbers than 4, so 4 has a probability of 0.

No, that's incorrect. While 4 may be a longshot, its probability is not 0. After all, 4 could be the correct answer.

However, in this case, there has to be a specific alternative, and any specific number has a probability of 0.
So, the sum of all specific non-4 probabilities is also 0.

Also incorrect. All other possibilities have an equal probability, however that probability is also above 0. You may not be able to calculate the odds, but that doesn't mean there is a 0 probability.

The fact that it is no 50% likely only really works in a finite set. Of course, you are right in terms of mathematics.

I was just trying to show how probability does not work well for things like this.

Well, resorting to mathematics when we're debating the existence of something isn't really a great way to go either. As I was talking about above, absolute certainty and justified belief are two separate issues.

Anyway, I agree, that the most sensible thing is to claim that it is 'unlikely', but to claim that it is 'absolutely not' is just as absurd, because it's 'maximally' absurd. If you know what I mean?

That's very true, but the position of believing a god doesn't exist says nothing about claiming the idea is absolutely impossible.

 

[VProud]

No, that's incorrect. While 4 may be a longshot, its probability is not 0. After all, 4 could be the correct answer.

I know, it is a long shot. But, it's calculable probability is actually 0.
You're dividing 1 by infinity. You're trying to find the probability of a single entity in an infinite set. Of course 1/infinity is undefined, but in probability that is a faux 0. I was never claiming that 0 was it's -actual- probability, I was claiming that our regular notions of probability do not work for this.

Also incorrect. All other possibilities have an equal probability, however that probability is also above 0. You may not be able to calculate the odds, but that doesn't mean there is a 0 probability.

Same as above, I was trying to use the idea that you would generate 0's to get across that our notion of probability does not work for this example. We need a different concept to discuss this, I was also saying that, since we do not know any alternatives we cannot know their probabilities.

Consider three doors, behind only one is a horse. (This is not going to be the MH Paradox, don't worry . )
From MY perspective each door has a 1/3 probability of having the horse. But that's not true in reality. In reality one door has a 3/3 probability and the other two have a 0 probability.
I'm just trying to assert that we cannot say for sure anything about the probability of a God existing. Especially when you consider that there may be both an infinite number of ways a God-Like being could exist, vs an infinite number of alternatives.
We don't know the exact constraints of what can and cannot exist, we do not know if natural laws are the same everywhere, we know nothing about what can, can't and may not exist.
Therefor we cannot assertion the probability of anything.

Well, resorting to mathematics when we're debating the existence of something isn't really a great way to go either. As I was talking about above, absolute certainty and justified belief are two separate issues.

Fair enough, I was trying to use the ideas behind it to prove a separate point, but I don't think I did a good job.

That's very true, but the position of believing a god doesn't exist says nothing about claiming the idea is absolutely impossible.

Why would someone claim something does not exist without also claiming it is impossible for it to exist? Isn't that essentially saying: "My guess is fact."?

 

[UnReAL13]

Are you suggesting that knowledge claims require absolute certainty in order to be justified?

For a knowledge claim to be fully justified, you would have to be absolutely certain. If there's any room for doubt, even the slightest percentage, then technically you should be Agnostic. I don't think any form of knowledge is absolute, but there are varying degrees of certainty.

A Gnostic Atheist is someone who believes AND knows that no kind of god exists. There's a strong implication of absolute certainty with this position. Agnostic Atheism is a much more intellectually honest position. Gnosticism means "to know", although the Catch 22 is that this is a belief system in itself. It's when you believe that something can be known, beyond any reasonable doubt. To claim knowledge is to be certain of the knowledge you're claiming.

 

[VProud]

For a knowledge claim to be fully justified, you would have to be absolutely certain. If there's any room for doubt, even the slightest percentage, then technically you should be Agnostic. I don't think any form of knowledge is absolute, but there are varying degrees of certainty.

A Gnostic Atheist is some who believes AND knows that no kind of god exists. There's a strong implication of absolute certainty with this position. Agnostic Atheism is a much more intellectually honest position. Gnosticism means "to know", although the Catch 22 is that this is a belief system in itself. It's when you believe that something can be known, beyond any reasonable doubt. To claim knowledge is to be certain of the knowledge you're claiming.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I know, it is a long shot. But, it's calculable probability is actually 0.
You're dividing 1 by infinity. You're trying to find the probability of a single entity in an infinite set. Of course 1/infinity is undefined, but in probability that is a faux 0. I was never claiming that 0 was it's -actual- probability, I was claiming that our regular notions of probability do not work for this.

If you divide one by infinity, the answer is not zero. The answer is not calculable. Those are two very different things.

Same as above, I was trying to use the idea that you would generate 0's to get across that our notion of probability does not work for this example. We need a different concept to discuss this, I was also saying that, since we do not know any alternatives we cannot know their probabilities.

That's also incorrect, do we need an alternative to leprechauns in order to determine the probability of leprechauns existing? Without that alternative are we unjustified in believing there are no leprechauns?

Consider three doors, behind only one is a horse. (This is not going to be the MH Paradox, don't worry . )
From MY perspective each door has a 1/3 probability of having the horse. But that's not true in reality. In reality one door has a 3/3 probability and the other two have a 0 probability.
I'm just trying to assert that we cannot say for sure anything about the probability of a God existing. Especially when you consider that there may be both an infinite number of ways a God-Like being could exist, vs an infinite number of alternatives.
We don't know the exact constraints of what can and cannot exist, we do not know if natural laws are the same everywhere, we know nothing about what can, can't and may not exist.
Therefor we cannot assertion the probability of anything.

You're missing the point entirely. We can certainly calculate probabilities that a god exists using the evidence that we find in the world around us. For example, if the Christians say their god is all powerful and all loving, the problem of evil would lower the probability of their god existing.

As for a vaguely defined deistic god, We can approach that with the view that the only reason we're considering it is because we came up with the idea in the first place. While it's not impossible that a being like that exists, I'd give it a very low probability.

Fair enough, I was trying to use the ideas behind it to prove a separate point, but I don't think I did a good job.

lol, fair enough

Why would someone claim something does not exist without also claiming it is impossible for it to exist? Isn't that essentially saying: "My guess is fact."?

Who said anything about that? Believing something doesn't exist has no bearing on your view whether the idea is impossible.

 

[Dave Ellis]

For a knowledge claim to be fully justified, you would have to be absolutely certain. If there's any room for doubt, even the slightest percentage, then technically you should be Agnostic. I don't think any form of knowledge is absolute, but there are varying degrees of certainty.

A Gnostic Atheist is some who believes AND knows that no kind of god exists. There's a strong implication of absolute certainty with this position. Agnostic Atheism is a much more intellectually honest position. Gnosticism means "to know", although the Catch 22 is that this is a belief system in itself. It's when you believe that something can be known, beyond any reasonable doubt. To claim knowledge is to be certain of the knowledge you're claiming.

So you're agnostic about the existence of Leprechauns?