God is santa for adults.

Post Reply New Topic

Any objections I have are relatively trivial here, mostly ones of wording:

I'm not sure what you mean to say here. Surely any proof of the non-existence of God by evidence is going to fail. I don't know if it's necessarily "made from ignorance", but it necessarily claims evidence that cannot be produced.



I don't think theological non-cognitivism is an argument for Athiesm, although many people who identify as Athiests may agree with it. While Athiesm responds to the question, "Is there a God?" in the negative, theological non-cognivism responds that the question is fundamentally unanswerable. An attack on the word "God" itself as meaningless seems like a weak attack, and rather trivial by comparison.



The best strategy is to step back from the argument "There is no God," and adopt the more pragmatic argument (as you put it) that the question cannot be answered logically. After all, the burden of proof is on the person claiming that there is a God. I wouldn't take that as a final victory against theism, though. You've merely established that logic alone is insufficient to answer the question. I think most people are willing to accept that some of their beliefs are illogical, so this is an incomplete victory.

I mean the main argument for strong atheism seems to be “God doesn’t exist because there is no evidence for God.” Th at’s an argument from ignorance.
BTW, “proof” is not the same as “evidence.” The first totally proves a proposition, leaving no possible room for error or doubt. The second makes the epistemic probability of a proposition more or less likely.


Agreed. That’s partly what I was trying to demonstrate.



I mean the most rational course of action is to act on the belief best supported by evidence. There is no difference in practice between assuming the absence of a god to merely doubting its existence. That’s what I mean by “pragmatic.”

Also, weak atheism is defensible simply because there is evidence against the existence of a god and no evidence for it. Note the difference between "evidence" and "proof."

I also believe in God, but I guess that everybody's entitled to their own beliefs. I don't want to start a flame war, so I'll stop here.

i grew up a christian yet i'm questioning everything..not sure if my beliefs are my own
or they're just there by default.
i often pray to god just to blame him for things.
sometimes when i need something, i pray about it
then it doesn't happen, i blame him some more.

I am an atheist with some Buddhist values, particularly concerning death. My parents are Christians and they brought me into the religion, but I realised a few years back that Christianity is their religion, not mine. Atheism is me and I don't need a God to govern my life.

Ahh. Right. I see what you're saying there.
I was pretty careful with my use of those words. There are many proofs about the existance of God - some stronger than others, and none beyond attack. My point is that defending a proof regarding the existence of God using only evidence, is a fools' errand.



I'd agree that one cannot be entirely rational while having beliefs that aren't supported by evidence. I'd also agree that both "doubt" and "assumption of absence" leave the question unresolved, and are unlikely to motivate further beliefs or actions. However, I imagine it makes a world of difference to the thinker. Being in a state of doubt at least indicates some hope that the question is important, and may eventually be resolved.



I have seen arguments of the form:

P1: if a God (of a particular type) exists, things would likely be (a particular way),
P2: things are not (a particular way), ergo
C1: it is unlikely that a God (of a particular type) exists.

But that is a far cry from providing any evidence of non-existence. In fact, I haven't seen an argument for weak athiesm that wasn't either (1) so specific as to be useless or ungeneralizeable, or (2) didn't rely on premises that are themselves problematic.



I don't think it'll start a flame war. ^_^ It's a hard question to answer, you know! The only thing we've established here is that logic by itself has a hard time answering it one way or the other. There are a lot of people (IpsoRandomo being one, I imagine) for whom that is enough to remove it from consideration. I'm not one of those myself; I think there are answers, but you have to go beyond logic to get to them. Provided we are ultimately responsible for our actions and we don't pressure others into believing as we do (which goes for the religious and logical alike), I don't see any problems. ^_^

The various Christian denominations seem to have their own views of God, and on his love and/or wrath.

and always a "him" too. Any 'God' worth their salt would have the gender thing worked out, I would think.

Merle

If you’re looking for absolute certainty based on evidence, or “proof,” you won’t find it. This is not just true of god, but also of everything else outside purely deductive reasoning. How do I know the past occurred? How do I know you even exist? How do I know that the whole world is not a dream in my head? How do I know that when I drop a pencil to the ground, that it will fall just because it’s fallen every time so far? I could go on, but it’s not necessary.

These questions are beyond “proof,” but not evidence, even in principle.

There are degrees of evidence, though there is no such thing as an empirical proof.

This is where the concept of epistemic probability comes into play.

The concept of epistemic probability combined with degrees of evidence also means that not all ideas are on an equal footing.

You seem to conflate “evidence” with “proof.”



Wrong. You’re conflating evidence with proof. They are not the same thing.



Occam’s Razor anyone? That’s generalizable and is used throughout our daily lives as well as scientific research.

As for your first objection, such arguments show that some definitions of god are less likely than others. Incidentally, the most problematic conceptions of God are also the most strongly believed by the general population.

I’d be curious to see what arguments you think fall under your second objection.

With all due respect, you don’t seem to be familiar with the weak-atheist arguments.



You mean logic has a hard time giving the answer you'd like to be true.

The only reason logic has a “hard” time answering the question is because theists are reluctant to admit that their beliefs are ultimately emotionally-based rather than intellectually-based.

If logic has a hard time answering the question of god’s existence, then it has an equally hard time answering any other question, whether it’s mathematics, science, or “common-sense.” Those questions can only be answered and defended through logic.

There are epistemically-valid reasons for applying logic, which I won’t go into right now.



Then any answer is allowable, even meaningless and contradictory ones. Without logic, there are no standards.

My initial intent was to establish a middle-ground where personal feelings could be freely discussed, not to defend a particular side. However, I'll respond to these points in the interest of making myself clear.

I am not looking for absolute certainty, in fact it's my claim that this problem cannot be answered with certainty. Meanwhile, the typical athiest scientist/philosopher often comes across with an air of disdain, as though there was a final, clinching disproof of God's existence, so those who don't concur must be somehow insane, ignorant, or stubborn. I simply want to establish outright that the existence problem isn't quite so cut-and-dry as it's often made out to be. If you have such a proof, by all means present it.

I do not confuse the meanings. "Evidence" is an observation that can be used to support a conclusion. A "proof" is a logical structure that promotes a conclusion. I will repeat my point here for clarity. There are many proofs of varying strength of the existence or non-existence of God, but none of them are air-tight. The problem here is evidence. There isn't enough evidence to fuel a proof that will convince you God exists. Nor is there enough evidence to prove God does not exist to my satisfaction. The most you can do is offer a strong proof that "God probably doesn't exist", or pick apart individual proofs that suggest "God exists," which will at best return us to square one.



I'm well acquainted with Occam's Razor, thanks. If I were naive enough to suggest that the complexity of a natural phenomenon was evidence for the existence of God, yet a simpler [scientific] explanation would do just as well, Occam's Razor would cut me down handily. While this shoots down a potential proof of existence, it does nothing to provide proof of non-existence. Taking pot-shots at theism is not the same as constructing an argument for weak determinism. I cannot defend against an argument you haven't presented.

P1: Nobody can present proof that God exists,
P2: When nobody has presented proof of something's existence, it probably does not exist, so
C1: God probably doesn't exist.
O.P2: A thousand years ago, adopting P2 would force us to accept many planets and stars did not exist, when today we are sure they do.

I am not suggesting you would make this argument, but this is a trivial example of a weak athiesm proof that suffers from a weak premise.



I am familiar with attacks on theism, if that's what you mean. Those at best establish that theists do not meet the burden of proof. If you mean I am unfamiliar with weak-athiest proofs that God does not exist, I have to admit I've never seen any that impressed me. Perhaps I fell asleep in class one day and missed it.



Cute. But no. You're not talking to a freshman philosophy student; I'd suggest you get into the habit of reading others' text more carefully instead of rushing to a witty response. I admit that logic has a hard time proving God exists. However, I have yet to see a halfway decent argument that God does not exist. I resent the implication that I am simply being obtuse - or even devious - in failing to recognize a proof you haven't bothered to present.



No, that may play into why theists have a hard time answering the question, or provide unfair obstacles when shooting down their logic. But theists' beliefs have nothing to do with your inability to give a proof that God does not exist.



I'm not biting on this one. I have yet to see an argument for the non-existence of God that didn't involve some complexity, or at least a bit of finesse. Claiming that you have an argument that is as self-evident as "2 + 2 = 4" is absurd. If you're trying to muddy the water by dragging it through epistemology, you'll have to do better than that.



I don't buy that either. I think it's quite possible to have a few beliefs - especially regarding one's ethics - that are emotional (as you put it) without human civilization crashing to its doom.

I don't think Santa Claus is the best analogy because most Christians I know don't ask God for special favours.

I'd say most people in the western world don't need a god because they feel in control of their own lives. But if you are living in a poorer country, or facing adversity of sorts, then it makes sense to reach out to a higher power. People need something to believe in, especially when they're at the mercy of forces they can't control.

And there are Puh-Len-Ty of people out there who are able and willing to make BIG MONEY off of peoples need to believe in something! In all seriousness though, (blind)faith seems to help people cope with things that they dont have any control over. But it doesnt need to be a faith in the Divine...........

That has always puzzled me. Why, when someone gets ill or injured, do people pray for that person? Doesn't God know they are ill or injured? Why do those people get special consideration from God if God could have prevented all of that in the first place?
or . . is it a Great Mystery that we are too lowly to understand?

hummm. . guess this is a rhetorical question

Merle

Your defensiveness not only proves my point that theism is purely emotional and without intellectual basis, but also that the vast majority of theists absolutely hate thinking about their beliefs.


-Strawman


-Quit strawmanning everything I write. You know what you're doing, and it's dishonest.
-You keep implying that I claimed to provide disproof for theism, though that is only the case for contradictory forms of theism.
-So yes, you are “simply being obtuse - or even devious.”


-Not accepting anything short of absolute proof is unreasonable. By that standard, you could not accept that a a pencil will fall to the ground just because it has every time before. You're a good example of how religious people are forced to compartmentalize their beliefs.
-Wrong. You strawman the use of Occam's Razor. The reason for using it is that the more premises are assumed beyond what the evidence calls for, the greater the chance that at least one of the premises is false. So, yes, Occam's does establish that some possibilities are more probable than others, not just in philosophy, but also in common-sense and science.


-You're still assuming more premises than necessary. See above.


- I never aimed to provide proof. If you insist on being so dishonest, then shut the f**k up already.
-Taking “potshots” at theism does make theism less likely. The more evidence there is for a belief, the more likely it is to be true. The implication is that beliefs with less evidence are less likely to be true.
-There is also evidence against theism (a mind that exists outisde time conflicts with what we know about minds; problem of evil, etc.).

-You've read nothing or misinterpreted everything. I'm not responsible for your cognitive dissonance.





-Funny, your own words betray your lack of understanding. You refer to weak-atheist arguments as “proofs”. That, or you're willfully dishonest as you have been so far.
-Quit strawmanning what I write. You know what you're doing.

-Really? You sure think like a philosophy freshman. In my experience, religious philosophiles willfully misinterpret everything as do you.

-Same to you as*hole. Funny, them strawmen.

-Strawman

-God can be ruled out if defined to imply a contradiction. We do the same in mathematics and other areas of logic. Incidentally, I would not be surprised if your god involved a contradiction.
-You also ignore the fact that I included science and “common-sense,” which consist of inductive reasoning. It is through inductive reasoning that theism is implausible.
-Most of the arguments are not that complicated and are fairly straightforward.
-What does the argument's complexity have to do with anything?

-Strawman
ignoring

-“I'd suggest you get into the habit of reading others' text more carefully instead of rushing to a witty response.”
-If you insist on questioning logic, then some epistemology is unavoidable.

-”If you're trying to muddy the water by dragging it through [ethics], you'll have to do better than that.”
-See how absurd you sound?
-Who said anything about whether humanity would fall to its doom? You're trying to change the subject. I'm not talking about the consequences of the beliefs in question; I'm talking about the evidential soundness of the arguments for them.
-My point remains, any answer is allowable. The only reason other ethical beliefs are not acted on is because we arbitrarily choose some rather than others based on collective personal preference, much as you do with your religious beliefs.

Last edited by IpsoRandomo on 15 May 2008, 3:08 am, edited 2 times in total.

You commit the tu quoque fallacy: Even if there was as much evidence for theism as weak-atheism, theism is not justified. You still have yet to provide any grounds on which to accept theism, even if the evidence cuts both ways.

This is kind of funny. It reminds me of the Calvin & Hobbes thread where Calvin decided to believe in Santa mainly due to an interpretation of sorts of Pascal's Gambit.