Open Debate on God!!! Part 2

[Spenser]

To continue this debate from here: Open Debate on God!!! (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60788)

I would like to reiterate this:

Originally posted by Spenser
TIME OUT!


This has gotten ridiculous, the OP I felt wasn’t even the real start of debate. It was simply set up. I have seen theists here scramble a defense against yet no argument, and in doing so not directly even attack the OP but more dodge and weave, then put forth messy absurd arguments trying to shift the ’burden of proof’ to atheists.

The burden of proof doesn’t prove atheism to be true people. And since theists are so up in arms about it; the weakness of their stance becomes quite apparent.

If I tell you I have a Ferrari would you believe it? In fact, I drive around town everyday in my truck but continue to insist I have a Ferrari would you believe it? Probably not and in fact you would be perfectly justified in making the claim that “Spenser does not have a Ferrari!” Until you see that I indeed do have one. I would be unjustified in saying “Prove I don’t have one. If you can’t then indeed my Ferrari does exist!” Now the fact is, I may indeed have a Ferrari. Just as there may indeed be a God, but the burden of proof for the existence of my Ferrari would be in my hands just as the burden of proof for God remains in the hands of theists.

Theists claim God exists. Atheists claim God does not. The theists claim precedes that of the atheists obviously, atheists wouldn’t have anything to deny the claim of if the theist claim didn’t come first. The theists claim gets the burden of proof and until it passes the atheists claim is obviously default. It’s simply the state you were at prior to the claim that ‘God exists’ was made. The only reason atheists make the claim that God doesn’t exist is because the theistic claim fails the burden of proof. You cannot get around it, the claim that God exists has to come before the claim that he doesn’t because the concept of God has to be introduced in order to reject it. The default position would be the opposite of the theists claim until said claim passes the 'burden of proof' test.

FACT:
1. Theists carry the burden of proof.
2. Atheism is the default position.

Get over it; this doesn’t disprove your God. Nit picking this only shows the insecurity of many theistic arguments and I know you guys have more faith in your arguments than that. Now I was surprised I had to defend the OP however I think these things need to be made clear before I continue. Sorry for the length of time between posts here, I am doing work on elections in CA and you can only imagine the current workload…

Spenser

I think this adequately destroys anything Ghost, SOTC or Normal have to say on the matter. If not mine then check Volker's just a couple above mine. If you still view theism as the default position and that we atheists carry the burden of proof then you are simply wrong and not much anyone can say will ever sway you from anything you think...


...and now to move on two my second phase of this debate. As mentioned in the original OP, God must be defined in order for an argument to be made against him. And as I saw the 'god cannot create a rock he cannot lift' arguments attacked, I must say I put no weight into such arguments. I thought I made that clear in the OP, however, if God is defined as being able to defy logic then THAT God is just as absurd as those arguments, making those arguments a good demonstration of the improbability of THAT God. No, I suggested that most theists would define God as being able to do all things possible. Since I didn't really see any other definitions of God posited we'll just have to go with what I assume theist's prefer or perhaps differing versions of such.

One thing most all theists say about God is that he is eternal. Everyone can agree on what eternal means I would assume (maybe thats too much to ask here). God has always existed. He has existed forever. This brings us to my first attack on said God, an argument traditionally used to attack atheists claims. Infinite regress. It has been said that the universe cannot be thought to be eternal seeing as how if one moment in time was preceded with one before it; and there is an infinite number of moments before that we would traverse the past forever and never arrive to a first point. this suggests that we could have never traversed all that time to get to now unless there was some starting point. As BGiC pointed out - "He is eternal. Outside of time. No beginning in time, no end in time." God has no beginning? Yet he is intelligent, omnipotent at that, and thoughts occur in a temporal fashion, even if this is outside of our time. One thought must precede the next. At one point God would have wanted to create the universe, then later decided to actually do it, then at one point later he actually created it. You are forced to conclude that if God is an intelligent entity that he exists in some sort of time, even if not ours; maybe God time.

Theists who claim that God is outside of time and yet eternal don't seem to catch the paradox. If God is outside of time, is eternal, and to add an attribute I've heard here before, he is one eternal thought, then he is useless. If he is one thought, if he is unchanging then he could never decide to create the universe, prayer is completely pointless, and he has little effect on anything. You can't label something one thought then give it the ability to do other things; this is simply incoherent. To take a step back, if simply being outside of time makes something eternal then the singularity that our universe exploded from can make the universe thought to be eternal. It is what the universe came from (therefore it was our universe) and it existed outside of time.

Omnipotence conflicts with infinite regress as well. Omnipotence supposedly gives God the ability to know the future. I've heard two differing version of how this works. God can either see the future or he can predetermine it. It seems if God knows everything then anything he does predetermines everything else so the latter example seems to be the case even if he can actually 'see' the future. It shouldn't matter because he already predetermined it. Anyone who claims that God doesn't predetermine the future is basically saying God didn't really know what he was making and this would kill omnipotence.

OK, since God predetermines the future he is labeled as the one who predetermines EVERYTHING! But wait, he has no beginning, there exists no point at which God could predetermine everything. Any point in which God is said to predetermine everything has a point before it where he should have predetermined everything, yet that has a point before it. Hmmm, there is no point at which God could have predetermined everything. If God didn't predetermine everything then he isn't omnipotent and if he isn't omnipotent we have once again proved God not to exist.

But since no theist offered a good clear cut definition of God, this will have to do for now. One argument so far, infinite regress, puts a pretty big dent in the concept of God. What do you have to say?

[RTS]

1) I agree with what Keith Russell stated in the original thread:

Originally posted by Keith Russell
Good afternoon.

Very briefly, how can one's default position on any subject or claim be anything but ignorance?

We aren't born knowing that we exist, we become self aware after a couple years or so of stimuli. From there, we learn the existence of numerous things.

But, the 'default value' is that, until we experience something directly, we don't know that it exists.

It is only 'til later that we learn to imagine the existence of things based on claims--rather than direct evidence.

The problems arise when we fail to learn not to confuse the two...

K

2) The burden of proof is always upon the one making the 'positive' claim.

I personally object to the label "atheist" because the word itself is integrally tied to some god, and was created by the god believers as an epithet for those whom they consider an adversary to their belief structures. I consider myself to be a "nonbeliever" in the religious, dogmatic god concept, but I am forced into labeling myself a "weak atheist" because of established labels.

The dictionary definition of "atheist" is absurd: "an atheist is one who denies the existence of god". This definition starts with the presumption that god exists! Only if god exists can an atheist deny His existence. From my personal point of view, and in rebuttal to this religious definition, THERE IS NOTHING TO DENY!!! "Atheist" is a relative term created by religionists.

In denoting the conclusion that there are no gods, this conclusion would have no meaning in the world where gods had never been invented and thusly no labels are necessary. Simply stated, someone’s belief in god(s) is required for the term "atheist" to make sense. Therefore, an atheist isn't necessarily what a person actually is but what they are CALLED!

Whatever religionists choose to call us, we are just ordinary people who do not subscribe to the official, approved, religio-societal superstitions! We have no use for any kind of artificial superstructures, complete with gods and churches, heaven and hell, spirits and angels and devils, and supernatural phenomena and holy books describing imaginary people. We view our objective universe to eventually be completely knowable and understandable without the need for fanciful, supernatural contrivances whatsoever.

We are not evil heathen. We accept that there are moral principles; things we ought to do because they are right. I base my principles on empirical observation,-- mine and those of the Giants on whose shoulders we stand. Our real world is such a wonderful, complex and surprising, delightful place, why anyone would insist on having a relationship with a figment of one's imagination strikes me as exceedingly unnecessary.

I am proud to be a "freethinking, nonbeliever in the religious, dogmatic god concept" as opposed to being an "imprisoned non-thinking believer".

[luvluv]

My position:

The default position is agnosticism.

Question:

If you go up to someone not familiar with particle physics and ask them if they believe in string theory, should they say "No." or "I don't know." ?

(And if they have to wait for physical evidence to believe in it, they aren't going to be believing in it for a loooooooooooong time.)

[Spenser]

Originally posted by luvluv
My position:

The default position is agnosticism.

Question:

If you go up to someone not familiar with particle physics and ask them if they believe in string theory, should they say "No." or "I don't know." ?

(And if they have to wait for physical evidence to believe in it, they aren't going to be believing in it for a loooooooooooong time.)

I disagree. The argument is either there is a God or there isn't. Saying the default position is 'there might be' a God doesn't float. Think about it, the default positions would never be 'there might be' leprechauns, IPUs, anti-gravity devices, fairies, confutobugamatons, Etc. No, such things are assumed not to exist until evidence is provided.

[xorbie]

I voted "other." The default position is neither atheism, theism or agnosticism. There is no default position other than "I don't know my position" (not to be confused with agnosticism). Because God is a logically defined entitity and presumed to be non-physical, and because the existence of God is not contingent upon anything else, God IS disprovable (in theory).

The IPU argument is a strawman, and a decidedely poor one. IPUs are physical entities which are contingent upon many other things (existence of the universe, existence of a planet, existence of O2 etc). Moreover, the invisibility part of it does not seem very scientifically feasible and I must admit that if an IPU was ever found, it would satisfy the IC problem for IDiots rather well. Thus, not only is the nonexistence of an IPU the default position, it is also the scientifically more correct one to hold. However, God is a metaphysical being, and is therefore by definition improvable by science. Assuming that logic governs arguments made about God, God can (once again, in theory) be proven or disproven.

I, as an Agnostic Aesthetic Athiest, believe that God is unprovable, that God's existence is irrelevant to this life anyway and that one should just believe whatever makes their pre-existent worldview more appealing and compatible (which is why I happen to be an Atheist for now). The other worldview can of course be attacked, and often times it is confused for the theism itself - such as in the case of fundamentalist religions.

So that is basically my little contribution to this.

[luvluv]

Hold on just a second. I never said the default position was there might be a God. You are putting words in my mouth. I suggested that the default position should be those under-utilized three little words:

"I don't know."

And I'm gonna ask you again:

If you go up to someone not familiar with particle physics and ask them if they believe in string theory, should they say "No." or "I don't know." ?

The only thing separating IPU's and leprechauns from string theory is the prestige string theory has among scientists. (And I would remind you that 1) this prestige is recent and 2) string theory might turn out to be every bit as imaginary as the other two... it's certainly a more fanciful tale.)

The correct default position towards any proposition about which one is uninformed is "I don't know."

[Jinto]

Originally posted by luvluv
If you go up to someone not familiar with particle physics and ask them if they believe in string theory, should they say "No." or "I don't know." ?

They should say "no." This person has been presented with absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe. The fact that a theory has presitge among scientists (undeserved until and unless it passes several tests that could serve to confirm or falsify it, which string theory hasn't) is not a reason to accept that theory as true. BTW, the only thing I believe about string theory is that it is an "interesting mathematical conjecture," but not only do I not believe it to be true, but I am wondering why the hell it's being called a theory, since the term "untested hypothesis" would be much more accurate.

[xorbie]

My my, what an awful world it would be if you believed in nothing without proof. And what an even worse world if nobody acted on beliefs without concrete proof and evidence.

There is nothing wrong with having an open mind and saying "Until proven otherwise, I think I will believe that X is true"

Should you act in ways that might turn out disastrous if X turns out to be false? No, I would not advise this. Should you run around trying to convince people of X? Not unless you have some proof. But it absurd and meaningless to say "you have no right to believe in X."

[Jobar]

If you go up to someone not familiar with particle physics and ask them if they believe in string theory, should they say "No." or "I don't know." ?

Luvluv, if one is considering atheism as weak atheism- that is, 'no god-belief'- then it seems to me that it is indeed the default position. As I highlighted in your statement, the question is not about the truth or falsity of string theory, but whether they believe in it. Since we should always be able to say if we *do* believe, if there is no belief present, we can only answer 'no'.

I think this is another one of those tricky semantic problems, where we must be very careful about what sense of the word 'belief' we are using.

[Wyz_sub10]

Originally posted by luvluv
Hold on just a second. I never said the default position was there might be a God. You are putting words in my mouth. I suggested that the default position should be those under-utilized three little words:

"I don't know."

That's not really what agnosticism means, although it's how we seem to define it now.

Agnosticism (as opposed to gnosticism) should mean that we cannot know (as opposed to do not know).

Many would argue this, I'm sure. But I would still stay away from that term as a default position.

BTW - there is a big difference between a logical default position and a biological default position.

I would agree that not believing in god would be a default logical position (in the same way you don't believe - or even consider - that purple dragons live in your shoes while you are sleeping).

But there is evidence to suggest theism is a biological default position for some while atheism is a default for others.

[xorbie]

I must disagree. The idea that dragons live in your shoe violates several laws of science, whereas none of the laws that govern what we would generally consider dragons allows them to exist in our shoe. If something was discovered in my shoe, I would be damn sure it was not a dragon.

[7thangel]

Originally posted by Spenser
OK, since God predetermines the future he is labeled as the one who predetermines EVERYTHING! But wait, he has no beginning, there exists no point at which God could predetermine everything. Any point in which God is said to predetermine everything has a point before it where he should have predetermined everything, yet that has a point before it. Hmmm, there is no point at which God could have predetermined everything. If God didn't predetermine everything then he isn't omnipotent and if he isn't omnipotent we have once again proved God not to exist.


What your saying does not really make sense. Why you insist that God "should" predetermine "all" things at just one certain point of time? Does an idea should exist even before it was conceived?

I intended to ask those questions from your other post but it slipped my mind. I got to focused of trying to explaining it.

[Kalkin]

I think that the answer to luvluv's question would be "I don't know." But, weak athiesm is still the default position. I can't explain it in the abstract better than spenser already has. But in luvluv's analogy, first, the person who'd never heard of string theory obviously prior to the question does not "believe" in it - they've never heard of it. If someone asks them about something they've never heard of, though, they should say they don't know about it, because they have no evidence to believe it. However, if they're asked to act based on this thing they have no evidence for or against, the default position would go back to not believing in it until given reason - acting would mean some actual investment of effort, and they should want evidence that it's not a waste.

So, to summarize, atheism is the default position in two ways; if you know nothing about any given religion, you assume it's not true. If asked to act based on that religion with no evidence for or against its truth, you assume it's not true. The only circumstance in which agnosticism instead of weak atheism would be default is if the existence of God has been asserted, but no one has requested any action to be taken on the basis of this - not a particularly realistic situation.

Spenser, I know you don't want to discuss "default" any more, but that seems to be hopeless... the theists are still not convinced.
:boohoo:

[Wyz_sub10]

Originally posted by xorbie
I must disagree. The idea that dragons live in your shoe violates several laws of science, whereas none of the laws that govern what we would generally consider dragons allows them to exist in our shoe. If something was discovered in my shoe, I would be damn sure it was not a dragon.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. (Although I am a little curious as to what laws you think govern dragons)

Are you suggesting the reason you do not entertain this notion is because it contradicts the observable world?

Are you implying that belief in god is consistent with the observable world?

Either way, we are speaking to a default postion.

A default cannot be to consider something. But rather not to consider something.

Once something is introduced for consideration, a default position is no longer possible.

[orpheus last chant]

Xorbie said:

Because God is a logically defined entitity and presumed to be non-physical, and because the existence of God is not contingent upon anything else, God IS disprovable (in theory).


God is defined? What is his definition please, I haven't heard one yet that cannot be shown it's internal contradiction.


My my, what an awful world it would be if you believed in nothing without proof. And what an even worse world if nobody acted on beliefs without concrete proof and evidence.

There is nothing wrong with having an open mind and saying "Until proven otherwise, I think I will believe that X is true"


Is it an awful world when things of importance require proof? i do not need proof for things of everyday, like the resistance level for my chair. but let us suppose you want to fly with a new airplane company, will you not look for proof of it's trustworhtyness?

An awful world would be where everything you have no proof of againts is considered true. Think of the confusion. All the contradictory things you will have to assume to be true. Don't you know that you cannot prove a negative? to keep away from unwanted falseness, everything (scientificly important) is guilty till proven innocent.


Should you act in ways that might turn out disastrous if X turns out to be false? No, I would not advise this. Should you run around trying to convince people of X? Not unless you have some proof. But it absurd and meaningless to say "you have no right to believe in X."


So you contradict yourself by saying you do indeed need proof to believe. What is it then?
And who says you have no right to believe in X or anything of that kind?
There is , you know the fundamental right to believe in anything you want, as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others.

wyz said:

Agnosticism (as opposed to gnosticism) should mean that we cannot know (as opposed to do not know).



But before one knows that one cannot know, what are we?
:p


But there is evidence to suggest theism is a biological default position for some while atheism is a default for others.


A biological default? What is that? And since the truth is only one, which one is wrong?

[xorbie]

I just thought of something. I don't know how valid it is, but considering the earlier men were AFAIK all theists, doesn't that make theism the default position in some ways? On same macro level, or something...

orpheus last chant
God is defined? What is his definition please, I haven't heard one yet that cannot be shown it's internal contradiction.
Well I disagree that the generic "OmniMax" God is internally contradictory. However, I think the assumption in this thread is that some definition of God exists that is not logically contradictory, otherwise talking about default positions is moot, is it not?


Is it an awful world when things of importance require proof? i do not need proof for things of everyday, like the resistance level for my chair. but let us suppose you want to fly with a new airplane company, will you not look for proof of it's trustworhtyness?

An awful world would be where everything you have no proof of againts is considered true. Think of the confusion. All the contradictory things you will have to assume to be true. Don't you know that you cannot prove a negative? to keep away from unwanted falseness, everything (scientificly important) is guilty till proven innocent.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Should you act in ways that might turn out disastrous if X turns out to be false? No, I would not advise this. Should you run around trying to convince people of X? Not unless you have some proof. But it absurd and meaningless to say "you have no right to believe in X."

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



So you contradict yourself by saying you do indeed need proof to believe. What is it then?


My statement only contradicted your false interpretation of my first statement. I clearly said that you should not need proof for all of your beliefs, but not to act in a way that could have disastrous implications without proof (you know, like using planes that crash 20% of the time). I still don't think you need proof to believe, only to act in ways that could have really important outcomes.

Wyz_sub10
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. (Although I am a little curious as to what laws you think govern dragons)

Are you suggesting the reason you do not entertain this notion is because it contradicts the observable world?

Are you implying that belief in god is consistent with the observable world?

Either way, we are speaking to a default postion.

A default cannot be to consider something. But rather not to consider something.

Once something is introduced for consideration, a default position is no longer possible.

Well you see dragons are generally conceived to be huge flying fire breathing lizards. Thus, they would not be able to fit into my shoe. Moreover, scientists have not yet discovered anything that is even close to the general conception of a dragon, and because science has been pretty thorough in combing the earth, I suspect they would not have one if it lived near enough to humans to be able to crawl into my shoe.

And I am implying that belief in God is consistent with the observable world. Anything I ask, you could say "God made the universe." What is inconsistent?

[Wyz_sub10]

Originally posted by orpheus last chant
But before one knows that one cannot know, what are we?
:p

Ignorant, wouldn't you agree? I mean that in the literal sense - as the saying goes (akin to above) - "you do not know what you do not know."

But that is not 'agnosticism' in the strictest sense. Agnosticism is still a position one takes relative to the existence of a god. The default is not to consider the question at all.

A biological default? What is that?

By "biological deafult", I mean the brain's hard-wiring. Boyer, in "Religion Explained", suggests that some individual's are born with a tendency towards accepting supernatural concepts, such as the existence of god or spirits. He argues that it may not be a learned behaviour, but a predisposition.

And since the truth is only one, which one is wrong?

Which one what is wrong? Are you suggesting that biology reveals truth or purpose?

Some people are heterosexual, some are homosexual. Is there one "truth" here?

I wouldn't use a expressed trait to answer such a question. Of course I am an atheist, but I think that one can be born with a brain that more readily accepts the plausibility of the supernatural. That much should be apparent just by spending time here.

[Wyz_sub10]

Originally posted by xorbie
Well you see dragons are generally conceived to be huge flying fire breathing lizards. Thus, they would not be able to fit into my shoe.

But now you've considered it, haven't you?

My point was that you would never normally consider such a thing, not because of the reasons you mention, but because it you would have no reason to conjure up such an image. The reasons you mention demonstrate that you have indeed considered it. You are "athedragonshoe", it would seem.

Moreover, scientists have not yet discovered anything that is even close to the general conception of a dragon, and because science has been pretty thorough in combing the earth, I suspect they would not have one if it lived near enough to humans to be able to crawl into my shoe.

These are further considerations on your part. I doubt any of the above has to do with why you've never entertained the proposition of shoe-dwelling dragons. There's a much simpler reason.

And I am implying that belief in God is consistent with the observable world. Anything I ask, you could say "God made the universe." What is inconsistent?

I'm not suggesting that this position is inconsistent. Rather, I was trying to clarify your reasons for shoe-dwelling dragon disblief. It seems you have considered the above, after all.

"Where did we come from" might be a question that arises and demands consideration. But belief in or against god's existence is by no means a mandatory consideration.

The default position for the universe's creation (which I am not stating here), therefore has nothing to do with god's existence.

The discussion here refers to the inverse - what is the default position on a belief in god.

There is no positional default for god until you have a concept of god to begin with.

[fishbulb]

Originally posted by luvluv
If you go up to someone not familiar with particle physics and ask them if they believe in string theory, should they say "No." or "I don't know." ?

This is a bad example because most people will not know what string theory is and cannot make any meaningful statements about whether or not it is likely true. If you don't understand the question being put to you, the answer is meaningless.

But let's say that you explained string theory to me in such a way that I understood what it entailed, but you did not provide me with any evidence in favour of or against it, and you did not provide me with any information about how well-accepted the theory is within the scientific community. In other words, suppose I know absolutely nothing about string theory apart from what it entails, I have no idea how much support the theory has from the relevant community of experts, and I have no way to perform any experiments or make any observations that would tend to confirm or refute the hypothesis. In short: I have no way of knowing whether or not you just made up the theory on the spot.

In that case, I would have to say that I do not believe in string theory any more than I believe in the hypothesis that there is a five-ton ingot of gold in orbit around Pluto. With no supporting evidence, both are random hypotheses, and a random hypothesis is much more likely to be wrong than it is to be right.

The same thing holds true of the god hypothesis. One way to explain the current state--either in whole or in part--of the Universe is to suppose that a god used its divine powers to put things the way they are. There are also an effectively infinite number of other possible explanations. If we have no supporting evidence either way, we should conclude that the chance of the god hypothesis being right is the same as the chance of any other hypothesis being right: practically zero. Practically zero to 1 are just about the worst odds you can have.

One might reason that there are really only two possibilities: either there is a god, or there isn't. Therefore, in the absence of any confirming or disproving evidence we should regard the probability of there being a god as 50-50. This too is incorrect: a random thing is more likely to not exist than it is to exist. (Do you think, for example, that the proposition that there is a pair of yellow tube socks sitting at the base of the nearest stop sign is 50% likely to be true?) To put it another way: there are an infinite number of possible things but only a finite number of actual things. Therefore a random, unsupported claim that something exists is more likely to be false than it is to be true.

Because of this, we are justified, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, in assuming that there is no such thing as god.

[Keith Russell]

Fishbulb, well said, and I agree.

Religion gives us the conclusions, and asks us to accept them, but gives us no evidence to support them, claiming that 'faith' is superiour to 'reason', anyway.

You are also right that it's not rational to accept arbitrary claims (claims which have no evidence supporting or refuting them).

K

[xorbie]

Well you see I think the problem here is that you are saying the default position is disbelief. I would not consider this "deafult" but perhaps "preliminary" or "prior to consideration."

First of all, this means you would have to disbelieve in any a priori knowledge. Second of all, I think the whole point of this debate is that it someone said "do you believe in God or not?" which position should require proof? It seems (to me) to be more of a burden of proof question. Yes, someone who does not even know what God is would not believe in God. That is not really saying much though. The question is "once you understand the concept of God, what should you assume?" ... at least IMO.

[Wyz_sub10]

Originally posted by xorbie
Well you see I think the problem here is that you are saying the default position is disbelief. I would not consider this "deafult" but perhaps "preliminary" or "prior to consideration."

I never said the default position is disbelief. I said it was inaccurate to say the default position is agnosticism.

I did say that a default position re: god and the supernatural might vary for the individual.

First of all, this means you would have to disbelieve in any a priori knowledge.

No, it would mean that you don't believe in anything that you aren't aware of. Do you believe in anything you aren't aware of?

Second of all, I think the whole point of this debate is that it someone said "do you believe in God or not?" which position should require proof? It seems (to me) to be more of a burden of proof question.

That's fine. I entered the fray to address the comment on agnosticism, and I acknowledged in my last post that the issue was, in fact, the belief in god.

Yes, someone who does not even know what God is would not believe in God. That is not really saying much though.

Well, it says that there is no default position with regards to god unless the concept of god is introduced. If you agree with that, then I think it speaks volumes.

The question is "once you understand the concept of God, what should you assume?" ... at least IMO.

That question is made far too complicated by an inexact and ever-changing definition of god.

Let me give you two examples. Someone is told:

1) God is a being that created the universe.

2) God is a being that watches you always and forgives sins.

I do not see the responses being met with the same default position. The first question deals with a popular mystery for man. Someone may be more likely to say "I don't know" because it is such an unfathomable situation - that time did not always exist. People are more willing to apply a supernatural explanation to a seemingly counter-intuitive concept.

Question 2 deals with something far less mysterious. Because god is intangible, how do I know he forgives sins? If he does, why is so-and-so still upset with me? Why am I facing legal action if I am forgiven? If he watches me, where is he? Does he have eyes? etc.

God's role in the first question is more plausible because it may be unknowable. God's role in the second question is superfluous and unidentifiable.

If I got really complex and said, "Do you think god made you release the slaves, then hardened your heart so you would pursue them", do you think the default position is "I don't know?" Or that saying "I don't believe so" carries a burden of proof equal to "I believe so"?

[xorbie]

No, it would mean that you don't believe in anything that you aren't aware of. Do you believe in anything you aren't aware of?

Not that I'm aware of :D

That's fine. I entered the fray to address the comment on agnosticism, and I acknowledged in my last post that the issue was, in fact, the belief in god.

My mistake and apologies.

Well, it says that there is no default position with regards to god unless the concept of god is introduced. If you agree with that, then I think it speaks volumes.
From me
I voted "other." The default position is neither atheism, theism or agnosticism. There is no default position other than "I don't know my position" (not to be confused with agnosticism).

I think we basically agree.

[luvluv]

Jobar:

Luvluv, if one is considering atheism as weak atheism- that is, 'no god-belief'- then it seems to me that it is indeed the default position. As I highlighted in your statement, the question is not about the truth or falsity of string theory, but whether they believe in it. Since we should always be able to say if we *do* believe, if there is no belief present, we can only answer 'no'.

Fair enough, I shall rephrase.

If you walked up to a man who had no knowledge of particle physics and asked him whether or not string theory was true, should he say "no" or "I don't know"?

fishbulb:

The same thing holds true of the god hypothesis. One way to explain the current state--either in whole or in part--of the Universe is to suppose that a god used its divine powers to put things the way they are. There are also an effectively infinite number of other possible explanations. If we have no supporting evidence either way, we should conclude that the chance of the god hypothesis being right is the same as the chance of any other hypothesis being right: practically zero. Practically zero to 1 are just about the worst odds you can have.

So, interesting side question, but since I assume you do not bother with God because he has almost no chance of existing, do you bother with string theory or theories of dark matter or any number of scientific hypothesis that have "practically zero" chance of being right?

Should anyone waste time with any scientific hypothesis, since they all (by your definition) have a practically zero percent chance of being correct? There's no empirical evidence for string theory being correct (in fact, if memory serves, it would take a super collider the size of the galaxy to actually produce detectable superstrings) do you place string theorists on the same level as theists?

[orpheus last chant]

Well I disagree that the generic "OmniMax" God is internally contradictory. However, I think the assumption in this thread is that some definition of God exists that is not logically contradictory, otherwise talking about default positions is moot, is it not?


Some definition yes, maybe god of the gaps? Or maybe supernatural entity? But before discussing that you have to prove supernatural exists.


There is nothing wrong with having an open mind and saying "Until proven otherwise, I think I will believe that X is true"

. Should you run around trying to convince people of X? Not unless you have some proof


Maybe what you said was not so clear? Or you didn't intend it to mean what it meant to me.
If you agree that the more extraordinary the claim the more you need evidence, and that for everyday things we go by past experiences then we agree.


And I am implying that belief in God is consistent with the observable world. Anything I ask, you could say "God made the universe." What is inconsistent?
[QUOTE]
It is inconsistent because it is not backed up by evidence.

[QUOTE]
Ignorant, wouldn't you agree? I mean that in the literal sense - as the saying goes (akin to above) - "you do not know what you do not know."


So the default is ignorance. Everyone starts of with not knowing.


By "biological deafult", I mean the brain's hard-wiring. Boyer, in "Religion Explained", suggests that some individual's are born with a tendency towards accepting supernatural concepts, such as the existence of god or spirits. He argues that it may not be a learned behaviour, but a predisposition.


Oh, than I agree. I was rather paranoid that you were going to suggest that some people have biological antennas for god.


Which one what is wrong? Are you suggesting that biology reveals truth or purpose?

Some people are heterosexual, some are homosexual. Is there one "truth" here?

I wouldn't use a expressed trait to answer such a question. Of course I am an atheist, but I think that one can be born with a brain that more readily accepts the plausibility of the supernatural. That much should be apparent just by spending time here.

I totally agree. i guess I jumped to conclusions on what you actually meant. Sorry?


I will not be able to respond, in case anyone wants to, because I will leave for my little vacation tommorow.

[Keith Russell]

The question is not whether there is a 'God' or not.

The question is, under what conditions is the belief in a 'God' a rational belief?

Until there is sufficient, independently verifiable, non-contradictory evidence that 'God' exists, it is not rational to believe in 'God'. (And thus, the 'default' position is an atheistic one.)

This has nothing to do with whether 'God' exists...nor should it.

K

[premjan]

would say that rationalism is also a religion under another garb.

[Keith Russell]

premjan, I think that, in order to include 'rationalism' as a religion, you would need to broaden the definition of 'religion' to the point that it would no longer have much meaning.

You're free to do that, if you wish, but I fail to see the point...

K

[premjan]

trying to preserve the democracy of worldviews.

You see, a scientist could easly decry philosophy too. Not that it matters.

[Keith Russell]

premjan, a scientist could not decry all philosophy, since science has its own philosophy, and its own philosophers...

...philosophy is not homogenic...

K

[premjan]

has a superior philosophy (the one which won over others, in a sense).

[fishbulb]

Originally posted by luvluv
fishbulb:

So, interesting side question, but since I assume you do not bother with God because he has almost no chance of existing, do you bother with string theory or theories of dark matter or any number of scientific hypothesis that have "practically zero" chance of being right?

Should anyone waste time with any scientific hypothesis, since they all (by your definition) have a practically zero percent chance of being correct? There's no empirical evidence for string theory being correct (in fact, if memory serves, it would take a super collider the size of the galaxy to actually produce detectable superstrings) do you place string theorists on the same level as theists? [/B]

Look out, straw man! I see a fire!

Any random hypothesis has a near-zero chance of being correct. I cannot think of any scientific hypothesis which was put forward at random; scientists generally have a reason for thinking that the hypotheses they investigate might be true. Between an unsupported hypothesis and a proven theory, there are a huge number of hypotheses which are unproven but for which there is some supporting evidence.

Once we have evidence to suggest that a particular hypothesis might be true, we abandon our default assumption and make up our mind based on the strength of the evidence. The amount and strength of evidence supporting a hypothesis should influence our assessment of whether that hypothesis is likely true. Very little evidence means we should be highly skeptical that it is true. A lot of evidence, but no outright proof, means we should suppose that it is quite probably true, but not certainly. Because there are an unlimited number of hypotheses and only a limited time to investigate them, we naturally tend to favour the ones for which there already exists some preliminary evidence: some reason to think that they might be true and not just a random musing.

Many hypotheses are ultimately proven wrong by the evidence, and others are eventually established as correct. Evidence is the tool that we use to separate the ideas that we ought to take seriously from the ones that we ought to dismiss as most likely wrong.

This is not a radical concept: it obtains everywhere in our lives, except when it comes to superstition and religion.

[copernicus]

Originally posted by luvluv
Should anyone waste time with any scientific hypothesis, since they all (by your definition) have a practically zero percent chance of being correct? There's no empirical evidence for string theory being correct (in fact, if memory serves, it would take a super collider the size of the galaxy to actually produce detectable superstrings) do you place string theorists on the same level as theists?

The question is whether string theory is an empirical claim. Some believe that it may be testable, and therefore a reasonable question to ask. What makes a claim interesting is its falsifiability. If you can't prove it wrong, then it is speculation. If you can prove it wrong, but all tests fail, then it can rise to the status of a scientific theory. If scientists had observed that Mercury appeared to be in its proper orbit in 1919 during a solar eclipse, then they would have had excellent proof against Einstein's theory of relativity (http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/EinsteinTest.html). The test failed to disprove the hypothesis, so Relativity was confirmed as a scientific theory.

Questions about the existence of gods may or may not be empirical. It all depends on which definitions of of gods you are looking at and what you accept as a valid test for their existence. Theists and atheists disagree on what a reasonable test for God's existence is. From a theist perspective, one needs extraordinary proof of God's nonexistence to reject the idea that he exists. From an atheist's perspective, the arguments presented in forums such as this are sufficient, because one only has to show that God's existence is implausible. His nonexistence doesn't require extraordinary evidence.

Now, what really makes theists hypocritical, IMHO, is not in their rejection of evidence for God's nonexistence. It is in their ready acceptance of evidence for the nonexistence of all the other gods one can think of. The materialist god Zeus is a case in point. (I call Zeus a materialist god because the Romans tended to reject creatio ex nihilo as an absurd idea.) That is, theists tend to fixate on one god or set of gods as requiring extradordinary evidence to be declared nonexistent. The others need not pass their own stringent demands for proof of nonexistence.

Empiricism is not really about evidence for existence. No one can actually prove that anything exists. It is about evidence for nonexistence. How easily can such evidence be ignored or brushed aside?

[Spenser]

Originally posted by Spenser
OK, since God predetermines the future he is labeled as the one who predetermines EVERYTHING! But wait, he has no beginning, there exists no point at which God could predetermine everything. Any point in which God is said to predetermine everything has a point before it where he should have predetermined everything, yet that has a point before it. Hmmm, there is no point at which God could have predetermined everything. If God didn't predetermine everything then he isn't omnipotent and if he isn't omnipotent we have once again proved God not to exist.

Originally posted by 7thangel
What your saying does not really make sense. Why you insist that God "should" predetermine "all" things at just one certain point of time? Does an idea should exist even before it was conceived?

I intended to ask those questions from your other post but it slipped my mind. I got to focused of trying to explaining it.

It makes perfect sense. God is omniscient. God is eternal. With anything God does, he knows exactly how it will effect everything from then on. By choosing to do whatever it is the way he chooses to do it; he predetermines all outcomes that arise from said event. You see theists are saying God always was and God created EVERYTHING else. By creating anything God would know everything that is going to happen out of the creation. In this sense, God predetermines everything. The problem here is there would be a point before that where he knew he would create something, and by knowing this ahead of time he predetermines that he will create it. Now because God has no beginning he would have to have always known he was going to create everything and this concept becomes quite incoherent.

If this statement:

Does an idea should exist even before it was conceived?

Means what I think it means and I think you meant to say this:

Should an idea exist even before it was conceived?

Saying no would suggest that God is not omniscient. Saying God hasn't conceived certain ideas completely contradicts the concept of knowing everything. Now if you agree that god knows everything and has forever you are locked back into infinite regress. Think about this:

1. The universe isn't eternal.
2. The concept of the universe is eternal since God has always known everything and God is eternal.

This is what I would assume most theists to believe, stating otherwise seriously questions omniscience. But its weird how theists can't accept the idea that the universe could be eternal (and by this I mean whatever state it was prior to the big bang, it was still considered the universe just in a different form) but can accept the idea of their God being eternal; which of course forces them to believe the concept of the universe (in God's mind) has existed forever. OK, I'm getting confused here myself but what I am getting at is this:

The universe can't be eternal but the concept of the universe is??? This doesn't make too much sense to me but should be the case if omniscience exists. It gets weirder that if you consider the concept of the universe to be eternal then God had no choice but to make it. In fact God couldn't exist without the concept of the universe, and this can be said because we do know that the universe exists. Since it does exist, positing God existence (and omnipotence) suggests that God cannot exist without at least the concept of the universe. Now this seriously calls his omnipotence into question.

It seems all arguments for an omnimax God lead to absurdity therefore an eternal omnimax God doesn't exist. :notworthy

[Spenser]

That last paragraph should have read like this:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Spenser
The universe can't be eternal but the concept of the universe is??? This doesn't make too much sense to me but should be the case if omniscience exists. It gets weirder that if you consider the concept of the universe to be eternal then God had no choice but to make it. In fact God couldn't exist without the concept of the universe, and this can be said because we do know that the universe exists. Since it does exist, positing God existence (and omniscience) suggests that God cannot exist without at least the concept of the universe. Now this seriously calls his omnipotence into question.[QUOTE]

Mixing up omnipotence and omniscience (as words, not their meanings) is not so hard to do...

[Spenser]

Should I just raise my hands in victory? What no theists up to the challange??? :confused:

[the_cave]

Originally posted by Spenser
Should I just raise my hands in victory? What no theists up to the challange??? :confused:

Spencer, you say:

In fact God couldn't exist without the concept of the universe, and this can be said because we do know that the universe exists. Since it does exist, positing God existence (and omnipotence) suggests that God cannot exist without at least the concept of the universe. Now this seriously calls his omnipotence into question.

But many Christian theologies posit a god who must create...this is nothing new. I fail to see how it means that god cannot be omnipotent. Perhaps there are some definitions of "omnipotence" that god fails to meet, but that doesn't mean he fails to meet all of them...I think that the very definition of "omnipotence" is subject to enough debate that there is plenty of room for a necessarily creating god to be omnipotent.

As an oft-cited example, could we say of god that he could cease from existing? Few would insist that if he can't, he is not omnipotent. Of course, if you would, now is the time to say so, as it would help in understanding how you define "omnipotence"...

Many hold god's omnipotence, for example, to be limited by his omnibenevolence. If ceasing to exist, or to create, is not good, then god's power is indeed limited--and few theologians would be concerned by this.

(While I'm at it, I'll also go back to the OP and state that I don't think there is a default position in this debate. If you want to argue historically, then clearly theism is the default position, as nearly every culture appears to have held to some form of religion or supernatural spirituality in its past. It seems to me that those who argue that atheism is the default position seem to be making the claim that young children in every culture do not know the concept of a divine power unless taught it. This could be true, but I myself am somewhat skeptical, and it is a fairly ambitious claim.

But then, I don't think that there are "default" positions--theism and atheism have always co-existed in human culture.)

[Spenser]

But many Christian theologies posit a god who must create...this is nothing new. I fail to see how it means that god cannot be omnipotent. Perhaps there are some definitions of "omnipotence" that god fails to meet, but that doesn't mean he fails to meet all of them...I think that the very definition of "omnipotence" is subject to enough debate that there is plenty of room for a necessarily creating god to be omnipotent.


You don't see how a God that was unable to exist without the universe isn't omnipotent??? Interesting.

I think your admission to multiple 'definitions' of omnipotence helps prove my point. Omnipotence only has two definition I am aware of:

1. God can do anything
2. God can do all things possible

The first definition being logically incoherent so I am willing to debate the second. Any other definition places limits on omnipotence which negates the meaning of the word, it don't make no sense! Are you suggesting that it is not possible to exist without the universe? If this is the case how could any being create it if its own existence was contingent upon it?

As an oft-cited example, could we say of god that he could cease from existing? Few would insist that if he can't, he is not omnipotent. Of course, if you would, now is the time to say so, as it would help in understanding how you define "omnipotence"...

Here you go placing limits on God's abilities again. Is it logically impossible that God cease to exist? If so, please explain your reasoning.

[b]Many hold god's omnipotence, for example, to be limited by his omnibenevolence. If ceasing to exist, or to create, is not good, then god's power is indeed limited--and few theologians would be concerned by this.
[b]

...and again. If few theologians would be concerned with this then they shouldn't go around claiming there God can do anything when obviously by this definition he can't. And if God can only do good, how exactly was evil made?

[b](While I'm at it, I'll also go back to the OP and state that I don't think there is a default position in this debate. If you want to argue historically, then clearly theism is the default position, as nearly every culture appears to have held to some form of religion or supernatural spirituality in its past. It seems to me that those who argue that atheism is the default position seem to be making the claim that young children in every culture do not know the concept of a divine power unless taught it. This could be true, but I myself am somewhat skeptical, and it is a fairly ambitious claim.

But then, I don't think that there are "default" positions--theism and atheism have always co-existed in human culture.)[b]

What the hell does history have to do with the default position in an argument? Has history not revealed wide spread human beliefs to be wrong before? Atheism is the lack of belief. You are an atheist when it comes to Hinduism (I'm guessing your a Xian or at least a monotheist) Would you dare say that Hinduism is the default position in the discussion of whether or not their Gods exist? The absurdity of claiming theism as the default position becomes apparent when paralleled with other religions otherwise ALL religions are the default position over atheism and that makes little sense. Positive claims are not assumed before being proved.

[the_cave]

Originally posted by Spenser
Omnipotence only has two definition I am aware of:

1. God can do anything
2. God can do all things possible

The first definition being logically incoherent so I am willing to debate the second. Any other definition places limits on omnipotence which negates the meaning of the word, it don't make no sense! Are you suggesting that it is not possible to exist without the universe? If this is the case how could any being create it if its own existence was contingent upon it?

Well, perhaps it could come into being, but could not continue to be without creating. Or else, it could simply come into being and begin creating at exactly the same moment.

But you're right, defining omnipotence is the key thing here (this wouldn't be the only active thread attempting to do so...) and yet, defining omnipotence using "possibility" seems to immediately call into question the meaning of "possibility"! Again, there is at least one other thread that is currently debating the meaning of "possibility"...

Possible in _this_ world? Possible in _any_ world? Possible as in "I can imagine the laws of physics being violated, therefore it's possible they could be"...? I myself don't know which definition is the right one, so it's a matter of some debate, which I can try and participate in...

Here you go placing limits on God's abilities again. Is it logically impossible that God cease to exist? If so, please explain your reasoning.

Again, yes, I am admitting that there might be limits on god's abilities--simply b/c there would be such limits on any being with god's other attributes (such as omnibenevolence...)

...and again. If few theologians would be concerned with this then they shouldn't go around claiming there God can do anything when obviously by this definition he can't. And if God can only do good, how exactly was evil made?

I don't know that many theologicans claim that god can do _anything_ these days...and those that do I am sure have a different explanation for god's actions than I do. Unfortunately if they're not here, I can't speak for them.

edited to add: as for evil, some have argued that evil is merely the absence of god; hence, the possibility of evil is unfortunately called into being along with the existence of god. To me, evil is made real by freedom--freedom is a surrender of part of god's will. He surrenders some of his power to creation. In other words, he willingly becomes less powerful (or maybe he never was more powerful than that...) but this is because of his omnibenevolence!

What the hell does history have to do with the default position in an argument? Has history not revealed wide spread human beliefs to be wrong before?

Sure, of course, but then I guess I don't understand the meaning of "default". "Default" sounds to me like the original position, the position that one reverts to in the absence of any debate, indeed prior to any debate. I argue that many people grow up with a natural affinity for at least some vague, nebulous spirit-based view of the cosmos, and always have. And some grow up with a very strong sense of the presence of a personal god in their lives. And some grow up with a strong sense of the absence of any such god.

So we're also going to have to define "default" it looks like, unfortunately...

Atheism is the lack of belief. You are an atheist when it comes to Hinduism (I'm guessing your a Xian or at least a monotheist) Would you dare say that Hinduism is the default position in the discussion of whether or not their Gods exist?

Well, it is in India...

The absurdity of claiming theism as the default position becomes apparent when paralleled with other religions otherwise ALL religions are the default position over atheism and that makes little sense. Positive claims are not assumed before being proved.

Well, gee, the claim that I exist is pretty positive--surely you're not saying that the claim that I don't exist is the default position?

What I'm saying is, there is no default position. Religiosity and atheism are both starting points for human debate. Again, if "default" means "what most people have naturally inclined towards before they ever encounter philosophy", I would favor religiosity as the default position. But it depends on whether that's what we mean by "default".

[Spenser]

Well, it is in India...

This is a weird way to think. So if you cannot disprove the Hindu pantheon in India it exists? I think you are right when saying default must be defined.

We are trying to argue about whether or not God exists. If God doesn't exist, there is no way of providing evidence for such a thing. You cannot provide evidence for the non-existence of anything. Claiming that something doesn't exist requires no evidence at all and can be easily countered by providing evidence of the opposite. Claiming God exists is a positive statement that shouldn't need be accepted as fact until evidence is provided, hence the opposite until said evidence is provided would be default.

Would you say that belief in the tooth fairy is the default position and its existence should be assumed until evidence can be provided to the contrary? No, you cannot prove that tooth fairy doesn't exist but lack of belief in such a thing is the logical default.

Saying atheism is the default position doesn't make atheism true, is just makes sense when debating about positive claim of existence of things.

Well, gee, the claim that I exist is pretty positive--surely you're not saying that the claim that I don't exist is the default position?


It absolutely was to me prior to you posting here. If some one asked me if I believe if the-cave exists prior to me being showed any evidence of your existence why should I believe you exist? I was atheist to your existence prior to this debate, however, that doesn't mean you don't exist. It was definitely the default position I should have taken prior to evidence in your favor. Do you believe that the existence of Kishina Meltilda Barthlope should be accepted as a default stance? I'll even tell you more about her, she is 5'2, the mother of 5 kids at the age of 23, and has 4 fingers on her left hand. Now does she exist because you cannot provide evidence that she doesn't? I have a better idea, try and take all the money off of a poker table in Vegas by claiming you have a full house and shouldn't need to show your cards as your full house is the default position therefore the rest of the table should assume it's existence. Why is it so hard to see that as absurd?

There is a default position, its atheism. This doesn't make atheism true, it just demonstrates where the burden of proof is placed and it is more reasonable to assume its true until demonstrated otherwise (just like it is more reasonable to believe you don't have a hand of cards that can beat me until you show them).

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Spenser
I disagree. The argument is either there is a God or there isn't. Saying the default position is 'there might be' a God doesn't float. Think about it, the default positions would never be 'there might be' leprechauns, IPUs, anti-gravity devices, fairies, confutobugamatons, Etc. No, such things are assumed not to exist until evidence is provided.

Maybe if you would read more slowly you'd avoid making these mistakes. Agnosticism does not say "there might be;" it says "I don't know.' Strong agnosticism says we can't know.

Of course, the strong version is self-destructive because to say we can't know something implies that we do, in fact, have some knowledge of the thing in question.

Your final "assertion" is false. There are many things of which we have no experiential knowledge and yet we do not deny them.

[Just_An_Atheist]

"Your final "assertion" is false. There are many things of which we have no experiential knowledge and yet we do not deny them."

Show me.

[theophilus]

One thing most all theists say about God is that he is eternal. Everyone can agree on what eternal means I would assume (maybe thats too much to ask here). God has always existed. He has existed forever.

Theists who claim that God is outside of time and yet eternal don't seem to catch the paradox.

You see the problem when children try to do theology.
Eternality is not a "long time;" it is no time. It is a dimension, a mode of existence. God has not existed for a long time, he is timeless.

He did not decide to create at some point in time. God does not look into the future and see what will happen there. All time is laid out before God as a solitary entity.

His ability to interact with his creation in time is a function of his omnipresence.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Just_An_Atheist
"Your final "assertion" is false. There are many things of which we have no experiential knowledge and yet we do not deny them."

Show me.

Gravity - can't touch it, taste it, smell or hear it.
Logic - same.
Truth - same.

See, the key word was "experiential."
You've never experienced any of these things; you may have experienced phenomenon which you attribute to these things, but you've never experience them directly.

[theophilus]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Spenser
We are trying to argue about whether or not God exists. If God doesn't exist, there is no way of providing evidence for such a thing.

Since you've never experienced a world in which God didn't exist and don't know if such a world is possible, your argument is invalid.
First, you must know what a world would be like with and without God. Then, you must construct a valid test for evidence of whether or not God exists. Since there is no way to vaildate such a test without assuming the world as it exists if God created it, you are at a dead-end.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Keith Russell
The question is not whether there is a 'God' or not.

The question is, under what conditions is the belief in a 'God' a rational belief?

Until there is sufficient, independently verifiable, non-contradictory evidence that 'God' exists, it is not rational to believe in 'God'. (And thus, the 'default' position is an atheistic one.)

Well, then, it must not be rational to believe in you since there is not "independently verifiable, non-contradictory" evidence that you exist.

What you mean is there are no rational grounds for beliving in God if you begin with the assumption that existence is fully perspicuous without Him. Since you can't know this in advance, you have no rational grounds for believing it.

[theophilus]

[QUOTE]It absolutely was to me prior to you posting here. If some one asked me if I believe if the-cave exists prior to me being showed any evidence of your existence why should I believe you exist? I was atheist to your existence prior to this debate, however, that doesn't mean you don't exist.

You are being obtuse. The default position regarding his existence would be ignorance, not denial.

If the person testifying to his existence was a known liar, you might be skeptical, but you would not categorically deny it.

If the person testifying was known to be trustworthy, you would tend to believe unless you had some reason not to.

If he was standing in front of you asserting his own existence, you would either accept it or deny the testimony.

The question is whether God has given sufficient testimony to hold you accountable. You say no, because his testimony has not met your standard of proof. But, unless you've encountered God previously, your standard cannot be validated.

You are looking for empirical proof for an immaterial entity. So, his testimony and the standard of proof must be of a different sort, mustn't it?

[Keith Russell]

theo, there is certainly independent, non-contradictory evidence that I exist.

Now, you don't have a great deal of evidence that I exist-- --but, you don't have any evidence that I don't.

That said, it would be rational for you to believe that I exist, keeping in mind that the belief is based on a modest amount of supporting evidence.

As for 'God', reality isn't perfectly clear period--'God' or no 'God'.

Nothing is known 'in advance', we simply do the best we can with the evidence (and the perceptual and intellectual faculties) we have.

I've been presented with no reason to believe, no evidence that 'God' exists.

(And, I've been presented with nothing but contradictory 'concepts' for 'God'...)

K

[Keith Russell]

Theo said:
"Since you've never experienced a world in which God didn't exist and don't know if such a world is possible, your argument is invalid.
First, you must know what a world would be like with and without God. Then, you must construct a valid test for evidence of whether or not God exists. Since there is no way to vaildate such a test without assuming the world as it exists if God created it, you are at a dead-end."

Nice try.

You begin with the assumption that you know that 'God' exists, which is just as wrong as beginning with the assumption that 'God' doesn't.

One should begin with the assumption that one does not know whether or not 'God' exists, and then begin examining reality to see if the concept of 'God' (as presented) contradicts or corresponds to reality as it is.

If 'God' exists, then 'He' does so in accordance with reality as it is.

(Yet, the various concepts of 'God' do not exist in accordance with reality as it is...)

K

[Keith Russell]

theo said, earlier:
"Your final "assertion" is false. There are many things of which we have no experiential knowledge and yet we do not deny them."

Yes, but those things do not contradict reality, thus one may rationally accept them, with the provision that one may revise one's belief, as further experience (and evidence) warrant.

Claims for 'God' and the supernatural do contradict reality, though. It is thus not rational to accept claims of 'God', the supernaturla, or the mystical--not even provisionally.

K

[Spenser]

As I thought. Theo you come here, pick and choose what you wish to comment on avoiding most of the argument then throw assertions around just as I have claimed.

There might be a God or I don't know, what exactly is the difference and how does either fit into a default position on positive claims about reality. Once again I shouldn't have to prove you don't have a full house, you have to prove you do. I appreciate the way you dismiss atheism as the default position without addressing any of the examples; IE My Ferrari, Hinduism as default in India, Kashina and poker hands.

There are many things of which we have no experiential knowledge and yet we do not deny them.

Assertion! Show them!

Gravity - can't touch it, taste it, smell or hear it.

I'm sorry, I experience gravity all the time. I am stuck on the ground and I can test it, apply scientific method to it, and confidently say gravity exists. There is plenty of evidence for it unlike your God.

Eternality is not a "long time;" it is no time. It is a dimension assertion, a mode of existenceassertion. God has not existed for a long time assertion, he is timeless assertion.

He did not decide to create at some point in timeassertion. God does not look into the future and see what will happen thereassertion. All time is laid out before God as a solitary entityassertion.

His ability to interact with his creation in time is a function of his omnipresenceassertion.

Eternality??? Thanks for giving yourself the examples of you making assertions you were looking for in the other post. Everything you have said is placed before us with no support, just you saying so. This is a horrible argument for God. I gave characteristics for Kashina, does this act as evidence for her existence? No! I see no argument here and you once again ignored the OP. If God is labeled as intelligent and personal, things I assume you would label him as, then he is forced into some sort of temporal thinking; even if it is not in our time. If he cannot think one thought after the next, then he is useless. He cannot be personal. If he doesn't function in some sort of temporal fashion then he could never have decided to create the universe at all, in fact he couldn't have created anything. All time a solitary entity? Then what's the point of rewarding and punishing, what's the point of prayer? If he couldn't have created it (because you cannot act if you are timeless) and it (time) is laid out before him, he sounds more like a victim to it.

Your last assertion places God into our temporal universe with your use of the word omnipresence. Well then , he is not completely timeless and arguments against his omnimax qualities apply. Simple ones such as if he knows the future (in our world) then he is powerless to change it and therefore not omnipotent. he doesn't know it he's not omniscient.

Theo, this may be the weakest argument I have ever seen for God.

Since you've never experienced a world in which God didn't existassertion and don't know if such a world is possible, your argument is invalidassertion.

Talk about assertions, geez! God is still the positive statement being made about reality therefore evidence for him has to be provided before you can assume I've never seen a world without him. I sense you are trying to switch the burden of proof, naughty naughty. My argument is perfectly valid because atheism IS the default position and God has not yet be anything more than asserted.


First, you must know what a world would be like with and without God.

This assumes that God is possible, something that hasn't been shown yet. If God doesn't exist, then it is impossible to know what a world would be like with him or visa versa. This statement is pointless and does nothing to prove or disprove God.

Then, you must construct a valid test for evidence of whether or not God exists and this is possible how?. Since there is no way to validate such a test without assuming the world as it exists if God created it, you are at a dead-end

It's almost like you are telling us that because we cannot prove God doesn't exist (like I said originally, you cannot prove anything that doesn't exist, in fact doesn't exist) that God must exist (once again an assertion, nothing more). Weak argument and it makes more sense why you would attack the notion that atheism is the default. Unfortunately for you, it is.

You have done little to counter my argument other than assert it is wrong and make several unsupported assertions about what God is, all of which make him less coherent and less possible.

It absolutely was to me prior to you posting here. If some one asked me if I believe if the-cave exists prior to me being showed any evidence of your existence why should I believe you exist? I was atheist to your existence prior to this debate, however, that doesn't mean you don't exist.

You are being obtuse. The default position regarding his existence would be ignorance, not denial.

Ha Ha, here we are again. Atheism is the 'lack of belief'. Don't go about defining what I am for me, thats rude.

If the person testifying to his existence was a known liar, you might be skeptical, but you would not categorically deny it.

You are missing the point again. Prior to him ever writing here I had not reason to have belief in his existence. Upon the start of his debating, I new the_cave was at least some one talking with me, this is evidence of his existence. What I know of him is limited, but I know that some one who goes under the alias the_cave exists. Now if you would have told me that some one called the_cave exists, I would have no reason to believe it as fact until evidence was provided. I could have FAITH in your word, but that would be nothing more than faith and not reason.

If the person testifying was known to be trustworthy, you would tend to believe unless you had some reason not to.

If he was standing in front of you asserting his own existence, you would either accept it or deny the testimony.

This serves little purpose

The question is whether God has given sufficient testimony to hold you accountable. You say no, because his testimony has not met your standard of proof. But, unless you've encountered God previously, your standard cannot be validated.

You are looking for empirical proof for an immaterial entity. So, his testimony and the standard of proof must be of a different sort, mustn't it?

This sounds a lot like a cop out. If it is impossible for us to test for God's existence if he in fact exists, then why do you bother arguing? Because there is nothing to test it is more reasonable to assume there is nothing there. Default, atheism. Positive claim = God, show the support! All your arguments support the existence of the IPU or an all powerful all evil deity as well as they support yours. Parody reduces arguments to absurdity and you are left once again reverting to the default...

Keith Russell has done an excellent job of countering most of what you say. You've done little to counter the OP. You've made plenty of assertions, where exactly is the argument for God? You excel in trying to attack and nit pick others arguments but do little to show support of your God other than claim that weaknesses in others argument justify your God's existence. Once again, sounds much like the God of Gaps...
:banghead:

[theophilus]

Originally posted by theophilus
You see the problem when children try to do theology.


It was pointed out to me that this was an inappropriate remark and I apologize.

I can only plead an overly active sense of humour.

[Spenser]

Originally posted by theophilus
It was pointed out to me that this was an inappropriate remark and I apologize.

I can only plead an overly active sense of humour.

I viewed it as nothing more than another assertion... :eek:

[Sometimes being gracious is a good thing, Spenser. -Wyz_sub10]

[mosaic]

Is denying the existence of everything the only way theists can defend their objective god? Is this all you people can do? Try to tear down reality itself? This just gets more pathetic. Post after post. This nihlism used to justify what is irrational.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by theophilus
Your final "assertion" is false. There are many things of which we have no experiential knowledge and yet we do not deny them. [For Example:]

Gravity - can't touch it, taste it, smell or hear it.
Logic - same.
Truth - same.

See, the key word was "experiential."
You've never experienced any of these things; you may have experienced phenomenon which you attribute to these things, but you've never experience them directly.

You don't have to touch, taste, smell, hear, or something to have experiential knowledge of it. If we did, then one could make the equally absurd argument that theophilus has never experienced Christianity.

[Spenser]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
You don't have to touch, taste, smell, hear, or something to have experiential knowledge of it. If we did, then one could make the equally absurd argument that theophilus has never experienced Christianity.

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

[Autonemesis]

Originally posted by luvluv
The correct default position towards any proposition about which one is uninformed is "I don't know."

I'll go along with that. But then how should one act? In the absense of knowledge, should one behave as if there is a god, or as if there isn't one?

If I do not know whether the street is clear of traffic, should I cross it? No. I should look to see if there are any cars coming first, and then make my decision.

But all attempts to "look before crossing" when it comes to the question of whether god exists are futile. Theists even seem to discourage this line of inquiry, instead asking us to accept upon faith that god exists, and then to conduct our lives as if this were so. But you wouldn't risk your life crossing a busy street based upon faith, why would you change how you live based upon faith in a god you cannot possibly know?

[Spenser]

Originally posted by Spenser
I viewed it as nothing more than another assertion... :eek:

[Sometimes being gracious is a good thing, Spenser. -Wyz_sub10]

Wyz,

Sorry, that was just my sense of humor. If theists sometimes feel that I'm a bit brash I have no problem taking a few shots aimed my way. I really am trying to see where Theo is coming from but all I see are assertions. A seemingly endless stream of them. Theo is allowed to presuppose Xianity but no one else is allowed to presuppose their religions nor am I allowed to presuppose naturalism. It seems to me naturalism is more apparent due to personal observations and applied science while his God is a 'because I said so' type of thing.

I do suppose I tend to play up to or down to the level of treatment I feel I am receiving and in that case I offer my own apologies; to Theo and any other theist who I may have offended.

Peace!

[Spenser]

I would like to remind Theophilus I am graciously awaiting his response to my post at the top of this page (that being page 3).

Tick tock, tick tock...

[Spenser]

I've been thinking about this some more. It is as if theists view the argument is something like this:

Theists claim a ball while atheists claim a cube.

This is not how the argument goes, its more like this:

Theists claim a ball and atheists claim no ball.

Now I can see why some tend to say 'I don't know.' but the entity that resides in the default position isn't automatically the correct answer. This little analogy should show that until a ball is show it is more reasonable to believe no ball.

Perhaps it should be clear that the default position is weak atheism, but atheism none the less...