Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Wads4 · 11-07-2005, 12:24 AM

"Originally Posted by mata leao
victory! you should be sounding the retreat! Evangelical Christianity is now the fastest growing religion in the world, with the new China stats in, eclipsing Islam."

So superstition continues to grow amongst the poor and ignorant--what's new? It seems to follow a mathematical/biological law,-growing like a fairy ring on a lawn, expanding at the periphery while dying in the centre.

EnterTheBowser · 11-07-2005, 12:29 AM

I'm going to argue that Occam's Razor is enough to make any unsubstantiated claim be reasonably thought to be false; and additionally that everyone accepts this principle for pretty much everything; to say it doesn't apply in the case of God is special pleading.

Given any set of data, there are an infinite number of hypotheses that explain the data. Imagine the color "grue." A thing is grue if it is green right now and blue after 2050. Now, how do we tell if a thing is green or grue, right now? It's not possible. This is the idea of underdetermination.

Now, this is obviously a bit of a problem to a rational creature interested in its own survival - some of these hypotheses would require that the creature take opposite actions from other hypotheses in order to ensure its survival. And in the end, Occam's Razor is how we sort through these possibilities. Sure, there might be aliens who are about to kill me if I unless I immediately raise my left hand, but we'd have to make an enormous number of unsubstantiated assumptions in order for that to be true. We seek the simplest of the hypotheses that fits the data.

Occam's Razor is enough to reasonably assert that a claim that is more complicated and has no additional explanatory power is false. We apply this principle every second of our lives, in everything we do. There's no reason not to apply it to claims about God.

My point is that if we assume that there are no good arguments for God, we're perfectly justified in asserting that God does not exist. Arguing otherwise is special pleading - asking that we not apply the principle we apply to every other claim to this particular one.

Wads4 · 11-07-2005, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seebs

No fair shifting the burden of proof. I'm not trying to convince you God exists; you're trying to convince me God doesn't exist. It is up to you to advance an argument to support your claim.

I think when one suggests that God does not exist, one means in practice that he is not around to be seen or heard and does not act in any way which is indisputably a divine personal act, easily distinguishable from natural events. Whether he exists or not,-if he does nothing, he might as well not exist. If I have never personally encountered another human in say, darkest Africa,-then for me that person does not exist; but that would be easily remedied by a personal introduction,-so please introduce me to God,-and I mean "introduce" in normal English, not in some Christian special quasi-language.

Wads4 · 11-07-2005, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quetzalcoatl

The one that will be made up on the spot to counter any inconsistencies pointed out. The one that magic will be called upon to solve said inconsistencies. This is a favourite past time of theologians.

Oh you mean "Ad hoc" God?- yes he is easily the most popular.

Wads4 · 11-07-2005, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff the unclean

I'm not shifting anything. I'm claiming that God doesn't exist. I'll be happy to convince you. All you have to do is trot Him out and I'll demonstrate by use of a simple and elegant experiment how He's not really God.

I thought they had already done that with Jesus, so I doubt if it would work,-whatever they trotted out and you discredited,-they would still end up worshipping it.

whiskey the hedonist · 11-07-2005, 12:40 AM

If personal experience is a rational basis for theism, it is also a rational basis for the existence of alien abduction, astrological accuracy, my own personal ability to stop the rain and change traffic lights on demand--although not while sober--and the odd relationships between the cleanliness of various clothing items and the outcome of professional sporting events all across this great nation.

Wads4 · 11-07-2005, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dryhad

You don't need to prove it, but then again to don't need to go off to the temple of Quetzalcoatl and say to all his followers "Nyah nyah! Your god doesn't exist and I don't have to prove that he doesn't!" If you want to do something like that, you need proof. If you want to believe to your self that Quetzalcoatl doesn't exist, you do not. Therefore Jagella needs proof while Biff probably does not.

The other time-honoured method is just to invade the temple, slaughter the priests and worshippers, demolish the alter and temple and then say"there you are , your god is false"; this is the method favoured by bombers and fanatics everywhere.

Wads4 · 11-07-2005, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dryhad

So what? The infintessimally small chance that Jagella is wrong is enough for him to be wrong. That means he is unjustified in declaring himself right. He can believe to himself that he is right, and as probability has told us he probably is. But if people like to cling to an infintessimally small chance what right does Jagella have to declare victory over them?

Yes, but in real life we have to make decisions based on probabilstic common-sense, otherwise we will just accumulate worshipful entities just in case they might exist and can't be eliminated with mathematical certainty. It is rather like not sweeping up after a sand storm, just in case every grain of sand might be needed for something. You have to throw the garbage out occasionally.

Wads4 · 11-07-2005, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoosier Daddy

Thanks, fast. I don't think the nonexistence of the supernatural can be "proven" with a deductive argument. How did Jagella come to understand the concept of god so he could claim "god does not exist"? How did you come to understand the concept of monsters in order to be able to claim they don't exist?

Atheists do not have a concept of God,-by definition, or they would not be atheists. The concept of God they are forced to discuss comes from the Theists who created the concept and then tried to force it on everyone else.

Wads4 · 11-07-2005, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dryhad

Well for a start there's a whole lot of empyrical evidence for them, while the evidence against God's existance is largely logical and based on assumptions about his/her/its/their nature. Considering this is about declaring victory when one has no evidence to support such a victory, there are rather bad analogues.

-but how could one have empirical evidence for a negative? Surely it has to exclusively be inductive and deductive logic that there is no God. If I point to a spot on the pavement and say "look there is no god standing there",--then it gets a bit silly, and we are back to frantically turning over every stone in the Universe to try and ascertain there isn't a god hiding under it,-and if the Universe is infinite,that would go on forever.

11-07-2005, 12:24 AM	#51
Wads4 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Jersey, U.K. Posts: 2,864	Mata leao "Originally Posted by mata leao victory! you should be sounding the retreat! Evangelical Christianity is now the fastest growing religion in the world, with the new China stats in, eclipsing Islam." So superstition continues to grow amongst the poor and ignorant--what's new? It seems to follow a mathematical/biological law,-growing like a fairy ring on a lawn, expanding at the periphery while dying in the centre.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-07-2005, 12:29 AM	#52
EnterTheBowser Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,021	I'm going to argue that Occam's Razor is enough to make any unsubstantiated claim be reasonably thought to be false; and additionally that everyone accepts this principle for pretty much everything; to say it doesn't apply in the case of God is special pleading. Given any set of data, there are an infinite number of hypotheses that explain the data. Imagine the color "grue." A thing is grue if it is green right now and blue after 2050. Now, how do we tell if a thing is green or grue, right now? It's not possible. This is the idea of underdetermination. Now, this is obviously a bit of a problem to a rational creature interested in its own survival - some of these hypotheses would require that the creature take opposite actions from other hypotheses in order to ensure its survival. And in the end, Occam's Razor is how we sort through these possibilities. Sure, there might be aliens who are about to kill me if I unless I immediately raise my left hand, but we'd have to make an enormous number of unsubstantiated assumptions in order for that to be true. We seek the simplest of the hypotheses that fits the data. Occam's Razor is enough to reasonably assert that a claim that is more complicated and has no additional explanatory power is false. We apply this principle every second of our lives, in everything we do. There's no reason not to apply it to claims about God. My point is that if we assume that there are no good arguments for God, we're perfectly justified in asserting that God does not exist. Arguing otherwise is special pleading - asking that we not apply the principle we apply to every other claim to this particular one.

11-07-2005, 12:40 AM	#56
whiskey the hedonist Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: next to the laptop Posts: 87	If personal experience is a rational basis for theism, it is also a rational basis for the existence of alien abduction, astrological accuracy, my own personal ability to stop the rain and change traffic lights on demand--although not while sober--and the odd relationships between the cleanliness of various clothing items and the outcome of professional sporting events all across this great nation.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.