Koyaanisqatsi

No, it's more an attempt to point out that a spade remains a spade even if someone comes along and then claims it is not a spade, but a rake (see my last post to Crito on page 2).

The observation that the character in the Bible commonly referred to as "God" is a fictional character can be (and has been) readily established beyond (IMO) a reasonable degree of certainty (see previous post and just about every single post on this website for corroboration) as well as the fact that it is the authors of the various stories collected in the Bible that are the ones making the initial positive claim that such a fantastical creature factually exists.

That claim's burden of proof has yet to be met, which means, ipso facto that the fictional label if you will remains.

See what I'm getting at? It is fiction until it can be proved non-fiction, or, better, it is "what it is" until it can be proved to "not be what it is" by the ones making that claim.

That is the very essence and purpose of the assertion of truth and the subsequent burden of proof dosey-do!

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi-Still Retired ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

Bingo.

Synaesthesia

Crito
No, we don't simply assume it. We can see that belief in God is motivated by the same epistemological considerations that motivate many delusions. (eg. Lack of parsimony, cultual mytholgy, hope for a better life).

So the primary issue here is that the reasons people believe in God are really the same reason as any other delusion. Since the theory is so terrible to begin with, there's really not much other option but to say that it's a very appealing, but very superfically supported myth.

diana

Koy,

I wasn't aware we were narrowed down to a discussion of the god of the Hebrew bible. I thought we were talking about gods in general, and the relative positions of "hard" and "soft" atheism and agnosticism.

I understand the distinction between the burden of proof of anyone who asserts that a book is "non-fiction" and those who say, "Like hell." The first is a positive claim; the Like Hellians can fall into two categories, one of which is a negative claim (as you've been arguing) and the other of which is also a positive claim.

I think where we're failing to communicate is where you decide "reasonable degree of certainty" kicks in.

If I say a pot is full, I have made a positive claim. If I state that the pot is empty, I've also made a positive claim. If I state that I don't believe the pot is full, this is a negative claim. Yes?

The way I see it:

The pot is full = theism. (+ claim)
I don't believe the pot is full = weak atheism (- claim)
The pot is empty, goddammit = strong atheism (+ claim)

Are you arguing that there is ultimately no difference between the statements "This is no god" and "I don't believe there is a god"?

d

Crito

Koyaanisqatsi,

First, let me point out that I am not a theist. When asked whether God exists, I answer "I don't know." I do not claim "We can't know." Furthermore, although I don't know whether God exists, I hope that he doesn't. And this is the most severe snub possible, for I'm telling him, "I don't know if you exist, but I hope you don't."

Second, I know damned well what the burden of proof entails. From <a href="http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting" target="_blank">here</a>, we see that "the burden of proof is always on the person asserting something." Thus, as you said, it is theist's responsibility to prove God's existence, for it was he who initially asserted "God exists." So, to make explicit, I agree with you completely that theists hold the burden of proof.

Third, the God I am referring to should actually be god, small 'g', so I apologize for not being clear enough. That said, I will skip your talk about the bible, because it's irrelevant.

The following two discussions should illustrate my point:

Theist: "A god exists"
Atheist: "What leads you to that conclusion?"
Theist: "Don't have to. It's up to you to prove me wrong."

That is a fallacy, shifting the burden of proof. The theist makes an assertion; the atheist makes none. Thus, the theist holds the burden of proof. We both agree on this.

But what about this:

Theist: "A god exists"
Atheist: "What leads you to that conclusion?"
Theist then gives the reasons for his <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conclusion" target="_blank">conclusion</a>.
The Atheist then shows that the Theist's premise(s) are contradictory, in some way false.

So what is the end result? Does it now follow that no god exists? NO!. Because, from <a href="http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html" target="_blank">here</a>, "if the premises are false and the inference valid, the conclusion can be true or false." And applying this to the discussion above, we see that we know nothing about the veracity of the initial claim, "A god exists.". That was my initial point.

I once assumed that it wasn't raining outside, because I didn't hear thunder. However I overlooked the fact that there can be rain without thunder. Hence, my assumption was wrong, so I can rightfully say that it's possible for assumptions to be wrong.

Correct, even if you don't yell.

Duh. Let me ask you something: from what did you conclude that I, at any point, denied this construct? Give me a specific excerpt from my writing, and your reasoning, please.


---------------

There is a difference between,

Theist: "A god exists because P1, P2, P3,..."
Atheist1: "Your argument is flawed because of...; therefore, you have failed to prove a god's existence."

and,

Theist: "A god exists because P1, P2, P3,..."
Atheist2: "Your argument is flawed because of...; therefore, you have failed to prove a god's existence. Furthermore, because you have failed, it follows that no god exists."

Atheist2's conclusion could be wrong, because he has not shown that no other evidence exists. Can I prove that such evidence exists somewhere in the universe? No. But I also can't prove that it doesn't. And hence, I say "I don't know."

Now, if I say, "Object A is fictional," does it exist? Of course not. Per the definition of "fictional", it's impossible to have a fictional creature which also exists. (Similarly, the eight-sided triangle.) So when you say that gods are fictional, you are saying that gods don't exist, which is one step past the mere rebuttal of the theist's argument, "A god exists because..." To say that gods are fictional, you are being Atheist2, not Atheist1.

Just howcertain are you? In your post you mentioned a 99.99999% certainty. How was that calculated? What makes it seem "more reasonable"? Sure it's not just 80%? 50%? Perhaps you, too, should share with us your ostensibly complete knowledge which allows you say "99.99..% certainty"

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: Crito ]

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: Crito ]</p>

Crito

Could you please precisely explain what you mean by "epistemological considerations", perhaps give an example?

Koyaanisqatsi

I used it only as a ready and familiar example.

I did not mean to imply you did not. My post to you was meant to explain what I was talking about.

Where it always kicks in.

True, but it's only relevant if the pot is not visible, since anyone hearing you make such a claim could readily determine for themselves the veracity of the claim.

You lost me on that one. The key to this is the fact that the truth claim (at least of the Judeo/Christian Bible, to carefully delineate) is about something that necessarily cannot be verified in any fashion except through "faith."

That's what I was referring to (and still am).

I would say it's more like this:

The pot exists = reality.
I believe the pot is a skillet = theism.
Unless you have some damn good evidence that would support such a belief, the pot remains a pot = atheism.

As I think you know, the word "believe" and its derivations does not sit well with me, precisely because of these unnecessary semantics.

As I see it, to "believe" something means that one accepts it as true without or in spite of evidence to the contrary. Or so, that is the manner in which I have seen this word applied over and over and over again.

Therefore, to say, "I believe Allah exists" is to say nothing more than, "I accept as true the existence of something I have no evidence for and, most likely, evidence against."

To say "Allah does not exist," then, for me, is the equivalent of saying "Fictional creatures do not exist."

It's identical to stating, "Holden Caulfield does not exist." Holden Caulfield is a fictional creature from a book. At no point does the book ever tell me that he is a fictional creature, of course, but that doesn't alter my ability to conclude (with a reasonable degree of certainty) that the character depicted in Catcher In The Rye, is, indeed, a fictional creature.

For someone to come along and contradict that rather apparent conclusion--to proclaim that I am wrong and that Holden factually exists and that Catcher In The Rye is in fact an autobiography and the events that were detailed in that book were factually accurate accounts, well, again, there one would have the perfect analogy to what goes on in theism.

Where is the evidence that establishes that the pot is actually a skillet; that what is natural is actually super-natural?

Fine work if you can get it, but one of the two is extant (i.e., self-evident) and one of the two is a positive claim requiring a burden of proof to support it.

This was (and is) my position.

theoretic

Hawking dittos, but i must disagree
Why could an unobservable God not produce physically observable effects? Or how can you show that all effects are observable to science?
To say that nothing exists outside of science is really quite a bold claim - though the position is logically consistant, as would mine be if i said that the universe was created five minutes ago by a giant goat. Really we can strictly prove almost nothing. We certainly cannot prove the existance or non-existance of God. We must, therefore, accept certain common axioms and gather logical and material evidence to compile with these axioms from which we may or may not be able to derive results. The nature, however, of this material evidence unlike the logical conclusions may be non-universal. Thus I have the necessary information to prove to myself that I exist, but not to anyone else. Therefore, as science is communicated it may not contain all available evidence. Perhaps we would do better to evaluate the self-proclaimed reasons that people believe in God, believe that God does not exist, or believe that there is not enough evidence to decide either way. The statement that we do not strictly know if God exists is true, but is I believe irrelevant. Our experiences, while similar are not identical, however, so we must realize that logical minded people may in fact reach different conclusions in this case.

hinduwoman

Starboy comments that the proposition "I am God". is unverifaible. Exactly! In Hinduism that is the position taken in philosophical debates: you cannot counter it through agnosticism; you have to insist that they show proof of a god.

Doodad, the concept of God is attacked. Christians deconverted become rational atheists. But some of them go to psycics and paganism, which is not more rational than Xianity.
By keeping God out I meant insist that there is no such evidence and so it does not exist.

If the agnostic position is 'I do not know", then it is not a position at all. It just ignores the importance of evidence.

Crito

Here's my answer, which can be applied to this question and others:

When someone claims, "Leprechauns exist", my initial thought is, "That's absurd; never ever have I seen such a creature." So I ask him, "You claim they exist; you have the burden. Prove their existence." To which he desperately tries to corroborate his claim, and fails.

At this point, the only thing we have learned is that the leprechauns-asserter has failed to provide proof. That's it. From the asserter's failure we can infer nothing about the veracity of his initial claim, "Leprechauns exist." It essentially brings us back to square one.

I use the qualifier "essentially" with good reason. This is because (for me, at least) the more pro-leprechaun arguments we refute, the more convinced we are that no leprechaun exists. For every leprechaun argument there is a refutation, and for every refutation a point is scored for the good guys, the leprechaun skeptics. And at the end of the day, decade, life, whenever, the skeptic looks at his scoreboard, remembers all the refutations, and changes his stance from "I don't know if they exist," to "Leprechauns do not exist." That skeptic is now a denier, 99.9999999% convinced that this world is leprechaun-free.

So all is good. Right?

I don't know.

Too often I hear people (and my conscience) cry out, "God Damnit! How could you ever believe that leprechauns exist? Not once has one been seen, and no evidence exists to prove their existence. There is a 'reasonable degree of certainty' in thinking otherwise - in thinking that leprechauns do not exist. It is simply more reasonable!"

Yet when my mind makes that strident statement, I feel something is missing. I feel like something was overlooked, and so I continue to explore:

"Not during the span of recorded, human existence has a leprechaun been seen," I say to myself. "Certainly one would have popped up at some point, were one to exist. Thus it is only reasonable to think that leprechauns, in fact, don't exist."

"Furthermore," I add, "every argument which tried to prove their existence has failed. Surely by now we would have found some proof, if they were to exist. It just makes more sense, then, to think that leprechauns don't exist."

But now I begin to question my assumptions. Exactly why is it more reasonable? Hitherto, we humans have explored only a miniscule amount of the universe. How can I possibly aver that it's more reasonable to think leprechauns don't exist, when I have witnessed so little of the universe? And how can I possibly aver that it's 99.99..% certain, when I have only experienced a small percentage of what's out there?

I continue this process, writing down my answers. Then with those answers (e.g., the "continuity of scientific laws") I ask the same "Why?" question, and continue on, hoping to find some certainty. What I end up with, however, is a headache and an "I don't know." And all I think I have learned is that, by nature, what humans find reasonable is simply what they've experienced.

To that end, I cannot bring myself to affirm or deny that, on a planet far far away, there are 10,000 leprechauns registered at their own <a href="http://www.leprechauninfidels.org," target="_blank">www.leprechauninfidels.org,</a> questioning the existence such chimeras as humans.

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: Crito ]</p>