Theli

Ouch! :notworthy So you believe in every god-claim you have ever heard and will ever hear? If you would disbelieve a certain god-claim, you would not be a theist anymore. Must be confusing.

gcameron

Actually, sandlewood, speaking Pascal-wise, I think it's more effective to focus on the punishment rather than the reward. Fear is such a good motivator. To wit: "In Unicorn-hell, the demons have three more prongs per pitchfork than in Christian hell, etc."

Devnet always had a good response to Pascal's Wager: "Blaise Pascal, currently burning in Islamic hell."

God Fearing Atheist

Nielson's incoherence argument is a reformulated verification principle. Martin writes it out formally as:

(P1) For any statement S, S is factually meaningful if there is at least some observational statement O that could count for and against S

(P2)For statement S1 and any statement S2, S1 has the same factual meaning as S2, if the same observational sentences that count for or against S1 also count for or against S2 and the opposite to the same degree.

I personally think hes onto something.

Wyrdsmyth

I'm thinking of redefining it as a kind of selective, specialized gullibility.

"Blessed are those who believe yet have not seen... no, that doesn't apply to buying used cars, or money investments... no, only with this particular spiritual matter."

Steven Carr

Best to be like Ned Flanders and , to be on the safe side, even do the stuff in the Bible which contradicts the other stuff.

Wyrdsmyth

Yeah, luvluv is now in danger of being labeled as an a-a-theist.

Sorry luvluv, it's all Greek to me.

Be careful how you say that. You don't want people to think you're just philosophically st-st-stuttering.

luvluv

whoops. double post.

luvluv

Automaton:

Well, let's assume for a second the God concept is meaningless. (which, if true, would make us both sort of pathetic because we are long time members of a board discussing the existence of the refferant of a meaningless term).

It seems to me that incoherence is a subjective phenomenon occuring within the PERCIEVER, not an intrinsic property of the perceived REGARDLESS OF THE PERCIEVER. Dogs, for instance, cannot understand the concept of, say, democracy. So, indeed, it would be useless for dogs to use the word democracy in their conversation. But what implication would this have on the existence of democracy?

Even if it is true that the God concept is, to us, incoherent, would that mean that it is inherently incoherent TO ANYONE. Is there anyone who could use this term meaningfully?

First of all, I think the notion that God is a meaningless concept is pretty dubious, because millions of very intelligent people have used the word in conversation with each other and everyone knew exactly what it meant. But beyond that, if the question of the debate is "Does God Exist" a reasonable answer to that question would be to say "I don't know what God is".

But there is no way to move from the statement: "I don't know what God is" to "There is no God" which is what Nielson attempted to do.

And again, I would argue that infinite regress is as much of an incoherent concept as is God. I have a much better grip on what the word God actually refers to than I do what the words "infinite regress" actually refers to. Yet Nielson indirectly pushes us towards accepting infinite regress without comment on the coherence of that concept.

I get that, but on the other hand isn't it pretty obvious that the term God does have a functional concept? If Nielson is right, then there are an awfully lot of very smart people (including nearly EVERYONE, theist or atheist, on this board) who are wrong.

dianna:

I said it wasn't my opinion, I was just trying to explain to you what was being said.

Well, this is kind of the point. And this is what J.P. Moreland countered with in the book and what Nielson, in my opinion, failed to convincingly refute.

Perhaps QM was a bad example (since I don't know enough about it to make a case for it anyway) but let's take the existence of an electron. Now, if I understand correctly, scientists don't actually KNOW what an electron really looks like or what it really does. All they know is that a certain mass of data could (at this point in time) best be explained by assuming the existence of a little thing called an electron with all the properties an electron is said to have. Well, Moreland said, while we don't know directly everything that "God" is supposed to refer to, isn't it sufficient to reference God by the set of data his existence purportedly explains. (The maker of the heavens and the earth, the one who causes religious experiences, the designer of the universe, etc.) Just as an electron cannot be referred to in and of itself, but only as in terms of what it's existence explains, then God can also be referred to in such a sense. Moreland asks why can't we make a coherent definition of God based on these phenomenae that God is invoked to explain.

Nielson claims that we can't because we don't know what "the maker of the heavens and earth" means because we can't conceive of what it means for an entity to make the heavens and the earth. I would disagree with him there. It is certainly inconceivable to me HOW an entity would create the heavens and the earth, but given big bang cosmology and the supposed theoritical ability of scientists to "create universes" in the laboratory (as I've heard stated around here), it is certainly not incoherent to refer to someone as the maker of the heavens and the earth.

Similarly, I don't know what it means for an object to be both a wave and a particle, or for an object to have zero mass. Yet I believe in photons because of what their existence explains about the world if they have these properties. So it seems to me possible to believe in concepts which may be in themselves incoherent but which are given coherence as a referrant because of the tangible effects the purported entities are said to have in the real world. Though I don't know what it would mean for an object to be both a wave and a particle, or for an object to have zero mass, I know what the word "photon" means and I can use it meaningfully in conversation.

So I guess it is the grounds upon which he declares the word "God" to be incoherent which I disagree with.

I disagree. There is nothing in a strand of dependant causally related effects which gives THE ENTIRE STRAND of dependant casually related effects a NECESSARY EXISTENCE. In other words, while each effect in the series is justified by it's preceding cause, the entire STRAND, in order to be begingless, would have to be a NECESSARY ENTITY. There is no explanation for the existnece of the string as a whole, so in order to exist it must be somehow self-explanatory, and it isn't.

Now from what source would a series of causaully related events derive it's necessity?

No Dianna, NIELSON, the atheist, is the one suggesting that we ignore big bang cosmology because it interferes with his suggestion that we believe in an infinite regress. In order for him to say that there is no justification for the notion that the universe had a begining, he kind of has to ignore big bang cosmology.

All of the theists in this book embrace Big Bang cosmolgoy and it's implications. It is the atheistic philosophers (in this book, at least)who are uneasy about it.

My point is that by the time we are old enough or informed enough to actually consider the merits of the God question we are generally already committed in one direction or the other. We are not tabula rasa by the time we can give serious consideration to the question, so why is "there are no gods" any more foundational than "there are gods". Both are universal existential claims.

If we can't make a critical distinction then our argument is going nowhere. Notice I said in my original response to you that it is true that any PARTICULAR CONCEPTION OF THEISM bears the burden of proof. But of the simple beliefs "there are gods" vs the simple belief "there are no gods", it doesn't seem clear to me that either of these is actually a default position. Both notions would need to have evidence in their favor to be justified. The only postion that could be truly default in my view is the position "I don't know if there are gods".

Agnosticism, not atheism, would seem to be the true default position.

And why wouldn't a person who declares the non-existance of God to be a fact not also bear the burden of proof?

All right, well first of the claim "there are no ogres living under this bridge" you have included a crucial qualifier "living under this bridge" which makes the claim easy to confirm. But the atheist is making what is known as a universal negation. The atheist is not saying "there is no God under this bridge." The atheist is saying "There are no Gods ANYWHERE". And a universal negation is always a radical claim.

A person who said "there are no Ogres ANYWHERE" would certainly bear a burden of proof. Even if the statement meshes with our parochial experience, there is simply no way such a statement could be justified because you have nothing close to an intimate experience with EVERYWHERE, which is what you would need to make a universal negation.

Even if human experience gave no evidence of God interacting with human beings (not that I buy that for a second, mind you) human experience does not provide evidence sufficient to justify the claim that there are NO gods anywhere. Which is the atheist's claim.

Do you disbelieve?

sandlewood:

I realize it's a joke, but it's not a very good analogy. The relative differences between Christian heaven and Unicorn heaven are minute, since the number of cherries on bannana splits is not a very momentous consideration and there isn't any intelligible difference between eternity and eternity plus 1000 years. There is a big difference, however, between eternal damnation/eternal bliss, and simply non-existance. There is a whole lot more to be gained or lost if theism is true than there is if atheism is true.

On a certain level I would agree but then so is the word "photon". So if one is coherent why isn't the other?

Again I guess that depends on your definition of atheism. Around here there is the distinction made between hard and soft atheists, but in most communities anyone who is not a hard atheist is defined as an agnostic. If atheism really means (as the dictionary says it means) a DISbelief in the existence of God, then the (putative) lack of evidence for God would not count in it's favor. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

However if you define atheism as a lack of belief, than yes the lack of evidence would rationally justify your decision not to believe but it would not constitute evidential support for withholding belief. I don't even know what evidential support for WITHHOLDING belief would even look like.

Theli:

Well, I am using the word god as broadly and vaguely as the atheist version of the word god. While a Christian theist would be a theist who only believes in the Christian God, a THEIST would only define a person who believes "god(s) exist". Such a person (a pantheist or a Bahai, for example) would not reject the existence of any god.

God Fearing Atheist:

I don't know exactly what the verification principle is, but Nielson went out of his way to avoid association with it in the book. Moreland accused him of that several times and he always backtracked from that and said that this was not what he was saying. FWIW.

Wordsmyth:

There is a difference between saying believe when you haven't seen and saying believe when you have absolutely no evidence. Jesus is not commanding us to believe without any evidence, only to believe even when there are some evidences which cannot be provided.

People invest money all the time without ever seeing the company which they are investing in or seeing the money the invest actually put to use, simply on the basis of a number rolling across the screen on CNBC.

Wyrdsmyth

Yeah, but the "evidence" you're talking about is anecdotal in the first place... the same scriptures Jesus' command appears in are also cited as the evidence that it is all true. It's very circular.

It's analogous to a car salesman telling you to have faith that what he's telling you about a car he's described -- but you can't see for yourself right now -- is true. But, he has evidence also, which happens to be the sworn testimony of him and the other salesmen. All you have to do is sign on the dotted line, and make a commitment, and then you'll get the car, just as described.

Do you see the flaw, here?

You're right, in that many people make money investments based upon ignorance, or very sparse "evidence." But, the more ignorant you are, the more likely you are to be taken. Ignorance and faith are not virtues in financial matters. Quite the opposite is true. The more you can check into every aspect of a business you are going to risk investing in, the better off you are. Sure, you might get lucky throwing darts at a board, just blindly buying a few penny stocks you picked off of the exchange, at random. But that doesn't mean you're doing the smart and rational thing. Getting lucky only gives you a false sense of confidence in your own financial skills. Look at all the people (particularly the elderly) who get taken in by fast-talking scam-artists, financial advisors, salesmen, nomadic contractors, etc. They trust what someone is saying, and don't check them out (which really isn't that hard, is it?), and then they get burned. The "blessed are those who believe yet have not seen" when applied to nearly every matter in real life can be re-stated as "blessed are the suckers." You're a sucker if you take everyone at their word, and don't demand hard, independent evidence.

luvluv

Wyrdsmyth:

Not all the evidence for the Christian faith is in the scriptures. But, at any rate, that isn't what I was talking about. When Jesus said "Blessed is he who believes and who has not seen" he was not advocating that anyone believe in him based on absolutely no evidence. That quote gets misused. A lot.

All right but let's say this car salesman was your best friend. You had known him all your life and in that time he had never failed to live up to the highest moral standards. He is a man of scrupulous character and one you have never known to lie. Would you trust that the car is in good shape on his word?

You are comparing apples and oranges. There is a difference between commiting belief in a proposition and committing TRUST in a PERSON. Christian faith is more like the latter. You are confusing the personal with the propositional, and the standards of evidence are not the same. Jesus was essentially saying to Thomas "You should have known me better."

Cynicism and suspicion, when it comes to people you know and love, is not a virtue.

I don't take EVERYONE at their word, but am I a sucker if I take SOME people at their word?