Ryanfire

I don't lead my life that differently from an atheist. I live by the way of naturalism/science.
We can discover the properties of things like matter: which can neither be created or destroyed, but it does not tell me why it exists.

I don't believe in the supernatural, psychic powers, angels, psuedoscience, and all the other nonsensical tripe associated with religion. So in that sense, I am an atheist/naturalist.

The possibility of god existing does nothing to my behaviour other than I enjoy a good mystery and am passionately inquisitive. That's why the secular web exists no?

Devilnaut

Well I would say no, but then again, I guess it's possible..

RogerLeeCooke

Depends on what is meant by "proof." If you mean logical derivation (from what premises?), I agree, but most people would say that present sense experiences normally don't require any proof in that sense. They are primary data. I think any sane epistemology has to start from there.

RogerLeeCooke

No, I'm saying that with my present worldview I *wouldn't* seriously investigate something so improbable. As an ex-Christian with many years experience in the Church (Catholic first, then Episcopal), I certainly gave theism more than a fair chance to convince me.

The AntiChris

djf

As one of the less helpful posters on this thread I'll try to answer your question.

Lack of proof of the existence of an entity has no bearing on the objective truth of its existence.

However, if you define "lack of proof" as the absence of any discernable effect on our physical world, then, to all practical intents and purposes, the entity may as well not exist. Of course, some will argue that even in the absence of any "discernable effect" it is still rational to infer a logical possibility/probability of existence - in the case of God, the obvious response is "So what?".

I'm guessing, but I suspect that those agnostics who say that it is impossible to prove the existence of God, believe that God may have some supernatural effect (whatever that means) which is unprovable.

Chris

Theli

Ryanfire...

hehehe... You just stepped on a paradox here.
Obviously god cannot have created everything, because that would mean that "everything" excludes god. Wich would make god nonexistent, and therefore there would be nothing to create everything. Ouch!

seanie

Ryanfire

I think you're missing the point of the Santa/Leprechaun question.

You can choose to define Leprechauns as mythical but that doesn't get you out of the dilemma. That doesn't actually prove or disprove that Leprechauns exist. Just as there are people out there who really believe the earth is flat there are probably people out there who really believe Leprechauns exist. They won't accept your definition. I regard God as a mythical entity but theists aren't going to accept my definition.

The difference between God and Leprechauns is that lot's of people believe God exists and relatively few believe Leprechauns exist. That's it.

There is no evidence and no sound philosophical argument in God's favour. That doesn't prove that God doesn't exist but it does put him in the same league as Leprechauns.

Put it this way;

Your Leprechaun theist believes Leprechauns exist. Actually they'll usually claim to know they exist the evidence being; that they really, really, really believe; that they read it in some book; an invisile Leprechaun spoke to them.

Your Leprechaun agnostic acknowledges that there is no absolute proof either way as to the existence of Leprechauns. Hence they neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of Leprechauns.

Your Leprechaun weak atheist will proclaim that they do not have a belief that Leprechauns exist. Not that that they believe Leprechauns don't exist mind you. They're not saying that. Just that they personally have no belief that they do.

Your Leprechaun strong atheist will say 'Leprechauns? Are you NUTS! Where's your evidence? Oh I see; you read it in a book did you? And an invisible Leprechaun spoke to you? (Nurse prepare the medication) Well that's just swell but I'm not convinced. Now come up with some persuasive evidence and I'll be willing to reconsider. But until you do I'm going to carry on believing THAT LEPRECHAUNS DO NOT EXIST.

That there is no evidence that something exists doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't exist.

But if there is no evidence it's a whole lot more sensible to proceed on the basis that it doesn't exist than that it does.

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: seanie ]</p>

ksagnostic

Wait a minute....where did Ryan say that, other than to quote a conversation he had with someone else? Incidentally, he did not portray himself as agreeing with that individual.

Theli

ksagnostic...
Just as I feared. You missunderstood my post. I never said that ryanfire agreed with this statement, but I quoted him as he did write it.

Earlier by Ryanfire...

I hope that cleared things up.

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

Theli

I think an important issue is how you see god.
Do you see him as a factual, conceptual or fictional being?
If no reliable observations led to the definition of the word "god", then he was fictional all along.
If we were to find a being that has these attributes somewhere out in space then we can call it "god". But it's still not the god that was mentioned when the word/definition was concieved, as that god was never observed.

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>