rainbow walking

In light of the fact that the question of a god's existence remains an unresolved one, when one brings TRUTH into the equation, I'm wondering if the failure of PoE constitues circumstantial evidence that such a creature could logically possibly exist?

Conversely, in light of the many arguments that such a god does not seem to obtain, I'm wondering if this constitutes circumstantial evidence that such a creature does not, in fact, exist?

Which brings me to another question, are we really, really interested in the TRUTH?

Or, have we concluded that our particular worldview is the TRUTH and have taken a position, with hands planted on hips, "That's my world view and I'm sticking to it"?

This is directed at theist and atheist alike. Myself included.

The reason, my motive, for kicking around these arguments is, and always shall be: WHAT IS THE TRUTH?

Am I the only one who feels this way or will this forever be a matter of "that's my world view and I'm sticking to it!"

If a god doesn't exist, I want to KNOW IT!

If a god does exist, I want to KNOW IT!


As it now stands I'm an atheist. I'm an atheist because I don't BELIEVE the evidence, such as it is, supports the claim that such a being exists. I'm also an atheist because I've seen, first hand, that the claims of believing in a god engenders specific virtues, (virtues that I have yet to see engendered among theists), and thus, fails to obtain. And because I’ve seen those virtues engendered in atheists without a recourse to such beliefs.

Being an atheist does not mean I have to agree with every argument an atheist submits to support his position, nor that I expect every argument I submit to be accepted as support for my position. I'm on my own here with one goal. To get at the TRUTH.

If I squash a particular argument against the existence of a god, try not to take it personal. If you squash a particular argument I submit, I'll try not to take it personal. I'm interested in the TRUTH...any lurking theist thinking this is an opportunity to start quoting scripture or preaching...spare yourself the embarrassment... but don't take it personal. Or is that statement untenable to my claim of seeking the TRUTH?

Clutch

To answer your question: Since the PoE does not fail (in its proper role, that is, probabilistically), then No, this does not constitute evidence that a god exists.

philechat

The question would be, would "truth" be possible without a consciousness to define them? But if a consciousness must participate in the aquisition of truth, would it forces the truth to become a worldview? Could we ever jump out of relativism, when we attempt to define truth?

Would what we aquired from experience to be the truth? But experience often failed us, even deceived us--even the experience of color appears to often be independent of the physical constants that made them. Would what be explained by science to be the truth? But aren't all the terms defined by science, the equations and the experiments, be a product of the human mind?

Is the idea of the absolute "truth" even meaningful? Or are we simply resorting to say, experience, statistical confidence, and our psychological states? Could all of the activities mentioned above be valid as search for truth?

As far as I know, the only truth I could claim is that "I exist at this moment, whatever form I am embodying." And there are many descriptions and interpretations of experience and phenomena, which appear to be more of an approximation than say truth itself.

Theli

I think it's easy to forget that there is a difference between "does not exist" and "can not exist", it's something I've encountered alot of times. If I say "god doesn't exist", someone else comes along and says "the universe is a big place, how do you know god isn't somewhere out there?".
And about truth, from my meager experience, truth is what we make of it. It's subjective. I think the word is so abused, misused and blurred it barely holds any meaning.

Theli

Well... I would say there is no truth we don't know about.
Only when the experiences and observations have formed the concepts in our minds, does it become a truth.

Philosoft

The failure of the PoE says nothing toward the overall logical possibility of God. It's merely a single logical disproof (attempt) for a specific God. It's possible there exist multiple logical disproofs which are wholly unrelated to the PoE.

It depends. A logical argument is an either/or proposition. A logically sound existential disproof would be absolute, assuming a specific definition of the thing whose existence is in question. If, like many God-concepts, the thing is being defined on an "as needed" basis, specifically to avoid logical disproofs, then logical arguments that are no longer absolute disproofs won't really be circumstantial evidence either.

I like to think so. The problem is, not only do we have to decide what the Truth is, we have to decide what is the best method to get at it.

Well, perhaps in the sense that I have rejected purely theistic/metaphysical ways of "knowing," but that might be because I've yet to even encounter a plausible way to discern metaphysical knowing from mental tomfoolery.

rainbow walking

Then the consensus seems to be that truth in any absolute final sense is a pipe dream?


Man is trapped in this relativistic realm where his only basic foundation is existentially comprised of facts as they now appear?

No amount of synthesis will ever attain?

Philosoft

I wouldn't go that far. I think it is necessary that if something exists, some Truth exists as well. The question is whether we can ever know the Truth.
I won't say that either. What I will say is that, currently our interface with the Truth has enough different parts that an interpretation error is likely to occur at some point.

Jayhawker Soule

What on earth (or anywhere else) is 'circumstantial evidence for the logically possible'?

Also, what attribute set is suggested by "such a creature"?

Jamie_L

TRUTH, in big capital letters, is a word that always makes me suspect when I see it. What does someone mean by TRUTH?

It seems like the word truth gets used when people want to imply supernaturalism without actually stating it. In this line of philosophical reasoning, truth is somehow different from facts. Truth is some strange metaphysical quality or quantity.

Arguements about Truth seem to end up with people talking past each other about different things, but all the time labeling them with the same word: Truth.

I don't think I believe in the TRUTH that gets talked about in these arguements. I don't even know what it is, in that sense. I believe in facts.

With that said, there are many facts we just don't know with 100% certainty. There are facts we may never be able to know. There may be things that we think are knowable facts that, in fact, are not (think quantum uncertainty here). We may want to know things with 100% certain, but as with all things, our desire for this has no bearing on its probability.

Almost all science is based on probabilities and likelihoods. Insisting on 100% certainty is the realm of religion and supernaturalism. Here in the real world, we must make do with what we've got.

Jamie