Does God exist? (1 Viewer)

[Captain Hero]

You see wikipedia doesn't say that 9/11 was done by KFC and Ernie Dingo but I know otherwise

 

[Iron]

What? I still cringe whenever I see people quoting wiki for anything, ever

 

[katie tully]

i cringe, because i remember the time i googled a town near parkes and people had edited the 'schools' section and wrote how shit the high school kids were as opposed to the private school kids

remained untouched for a month. many lulz were had.

 

[Captain Hero]

What? I still cringe whenever I see people quoting wiki for anything, ever

In discussion it's fine. In academic papers it isn't.

 

[Iron]

I'm adamant that wiki sources should remain a private belief, not rammed down people's throats.

 

[katie tully]

soooooooooooo....

premarital sex time?

 

[katie tully]

how did i miss this post

who say plants need sunlight just light, that is all that matters.

 

[Kwayera]

I loled, and then couldn't be bothered.


Seriously, this was in year 8 science. Does that just go in one ear and out the other?

 

[katie tully]

I loled, and then couldn't be bothered.


Seriously, this was in year 8 science. Does that just go in one ear and out the other?

i dont even lol anymore

i rage internally.

 

[xeuyrawp]

What? I still cringe whenever I see people quoting wiki for anything, ever

hahah, well I cringe every time people say "I haven't heard of them" with some sort of authority.

Basically, if I haven't heard of them and neither has wikipedia, I probably don't care about them or what they have to say in a debate on theism. Without some kind of decent introduction to them; ie, 'have you heard of x, they've got this great theory on y.', obscure-name-dropping is pointless.

If you're in to namedropping, I've got one for you:
SCIENCE

 

[Captain Hero]

I think Alex secretly detests science due to a lack of proficiency in the field. He probably finds pottering around in the arts to be far purer an intellectual exercise.

Sic 'em Feynmann Sic em!

 

[BradCube]

I don't think it's bad practice to say that science merely 'claims'. One of the great strengths of science is that it shies away from absolute claims and is open to revision if the right evidence comes along. Science doesn't say 'believe X because it is a fact', but rather says 'believe X because it is the most warranted belief based on our current state of knowledge'.

I concur with this KFunk - as I do with pretty much everything you say.

I do hate it though when the word "claim" is used in a demeaning fashion in order to belittle or invalidate a belief. It's on the same level as using the word "theory" in order to dismiss a position of belief (but I fear we've been here before).

 

[KFunk]

Just because there is nothing that you consider proof that God exists, there is nothing that disproves it either?

We've visited this point time and time again in this thread but it's often worth another go.

A hypothetical rule of reasoning which suggests that we accept the existence things for which we lack disconfirming evidence (even in the lack of confirming evidence) endorses belief in an infinite array of rediculous things - any beast, divine pantheon, or hypothetical entity for which we lack disconfirming evidence (hint: simply append the predicate '...is invisible to human senses and technology'). In short, it gets you nowhere. It's not useful as a tool of reason because it lacks any direction or subtle degree of discrimination.

It's fair enough to say that you can't justify complete rejection (endorsement of 'X does not exist') on the basis of nil evidence. You can, however, very easily justify refused acceptance, that is, a refusal to assent to the proposition 'X exists'.

 

[BradCube]

It's fair enough to say that you can't justify complete rejection (endorsement of 'X does not exist') on the basis of nil evidence. You can, however, very easily justify refused acceptance, that is, a refusal to assent to the proposition 'X exists'.

I think this is the crux of the matter of the matter for me. I can't see at all how this reasoning is an atheistic or theistic argument. It's an agnostic response, so I don't know why I see people on either side of the fence use it as a sort of proof in their argument. I mean sure - the atheist can always say that we don't believe in fairies etc, but I find it extremely concerning if this is the only reasoning they have for dismissing a belief in god.

 

[Enteebee]

It's an agnostic response

What you fail to see is that to be an agnostic is also often to be an atheist, just not a 'strong atheist' - To simply lack a belief in God generally makes you an atheist.

I mean sure - the atheist can always say that we don't believe in fairies etc, but I find it extremely concerning if this is the only reasoning they have for dismissing a belief in god.

The fact is that even someone who says they're agnostic about God generally must admit that by the same token they are also only agnostic of fairies. There is no special disconnection between God and a fairy, they are both things which by their definitions we can't prove/disprove.

 

[BradCube]

What you fail to see is that to be an agnostic is also often to be an atheist, just not a 'strong atheist' - To simply lack a belief in God generally makes you an atheist.

Unfortunately, I just don't buy that definition of atheism. It just seems to be agnosticism renamed. Plus, it doesn't really say all that much since I honestly can't help but see it as a psychological description. Under that definition a huge number of things could be named atheists - newborn babies, dogs and even inanimate objects such as pencils and pens. Does their lack of belief in God also make them atheists? Similarly, could a theist say, "my lack of disbelief in God is what characterizes me as a theist"?

The fact is that even someone who says they're agnostic about God generally must admit that by the same token they are also only agnostic of fairies. There is no special disconnection between God and a fairy, they are both things which by their definitions we can't prove/disprove.

Well, sure - but I don't think many people have troubles dismissing fairies for two reasons:

1. There is no reason at all to assume they do or do not exist (we have no idea what evidence we should even expect to find if they did exist).

2. There is no dramatic conclusions or consequences whether they do or do/do not exist, and so choosing to believe they exist or not becomes a non-issue since either conclusion makes no difference.

Personally, I still stand by my original statement and would be very concerned if anyone thought it wise to dismiss God in the same way one might dismiss fairies. Surely if there is even the possibility that God exists, that alone warrants the effort to try and uncover the truth of the matter.

 

[Graustein]

Unfortunately, I just don't buy that definition of atheism. It just seems to be agnosticism renamed. Plus, it doesn't really say all that much since I honestly can't help but see it as a psychological description. Under that definition a huge number of things could be named atheists - newborn babies, dogs and even inanimate objects such as pencils and pens. Does their lack of belief in God also make them atheists? Similarly, could a theist say, "my lack of disbelief in God is what characterizes me as a theist"?

No, a theist could not say that.
Theism is the belief in a god. Atheism, by the very definition of the term, is non-theism, whether it take the form of lack of belief in the presence of God or outright belief in God's absence. Both are atheism.

Now, on agnosticism:
I would argue that to be agnostic does NOT mean that you are likely to be atheist. Such a statement shows ignorance of what agnosticism means. To be agnostic is to accept that it is impossible to know something for certain (at least with our current abilities), in this case God's existance. It doesn't mean what most people think it means, which is a flat "I don't know". The vast majority of us are agnostic, whether we ourselves recognise it or not. The theist who admits that God's existance cannot be conclusively proven, as most rational theists will, is agnostic. The atheist who accepts that they cannot disprove God is likewise agnostic. The theist who refuses to consider that God may not exist, and the atheist who insists vehemently that God cannot exist, are both NOT agnostic.

In fact, I see more theists who accept that God cannot be conclusively proven than I see atheists who admit that God cannot be disproven. This, plus the sheer fact that theists outnumber atheists by a large margin lead me to believe that there are more agnostic theists than there are agnostic atheists. Agnosticism isn't an "I don't know" response, more often than not it's a "While I admit that the possibility exists that I am wrong, I don't think I am" response.

 

[Enteebee]

Unfortunately, I just don't buy that definition of atheism. It just seems to be agnosticism renamed. Plus, it doesn't really say all that much since I honestly can't help but see it as a psychological description. Under that definition a huge number of things could be named atheists - newborn babies, dogs and even inanimate objects such as pencils and pens. Does their lack of belief in God also make them atheists?

I think it's silly to deny this definition, by doing so you basically deny the right for any thinking individual to assert something as existing/not existing. There are very few considered individuals out there that claim to know anything with 100% certainty. If I throw 100,000 reindeer off a building this doesn't mean I know for certain that they do not fly... but I will wear the tag of a a-flying-reindeerist. Am I forever to hold myself as agnostic on this matter? For common-language purposes I do not believe reindeer can fly. Agnosticism is an epistemological position.

When in your opinion can we claim that something doesn't exist?

Similarly, could a theist say, "my lack of disbelief in God is what characterizes me as a theist"?

The problem is that there's a very big difference between someone who lacks disbelief in god and someone who believes in god. Someone who lacks disbelief can not accept jesus or pray to any god or believe they're going to heaven when they die. It is a much larger divide than the divide between someone who doesn't believe in god and someone who lacks a belief in god, both of these opinions seem to

To take the example away from God... let's use the analogy of the tooth fairy. If someone believes in the tooth fairy, they are a very different animal from someone who claims they can't prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist (i.e. Me). Whereas someone who doesn't believe the tooth fairy exists isn't that far away at all from someone who believes we can't prove the tooth fairy exists.

In fact I would say that as there appears to be no way to demonstrate that something does not exist, to claim to be AS YET unable to prove something does exist is in practical terms exactly the same as claiming something does not exist. In general people do not mean anything more, unless they believe there is a way to prove something definitely does not exist... in which case I'd like to hear from them.

1. There is no reason at all to assume they do or do not exist (we have no idea what evidence we should even expect to find if they did exist).

The same is true for God.

2. There is no dramatic conclusions or consequences whether they do or do/do not exist, and so choosing to believe they exist or not becomes a non-issue since either conclusion makes no difference.

This doesn't matter and I'm not sure if it's right anyway.

Personally, I still stand by my original statement and would be very concerned if anyone thought it wise to dismiss God in the same way one might dismiss fairies. Surely if there is even the possibility that God exists, that alone warrants the effort to try and uncover the truth of the matter.

You've still yet to provide a solid reason why I shouldn't dismiss God for the same reason as fairies, until you produce your evidence or whatever... but I thought you were agreeing with KFunk's statement?

 

[KFunk]

I would argue that to be agnostic does NOT mean that you are likely to be atheist. Such a statement shows ignorance of what agnosticism means. To be agnostic is to accept that it is impossible to know something for certain (at least with our current abilities), in this case God's existance.

This is a common misconception. The position which holds that it is impossible to know is simply one type of agnosticism. The common claim across different brands of agnosticism is that we don't know either way (not that it is impossible to know - a belief which characterises strong agnosticism).

 

[Graustein]

This is a common misconception. The position which holds that it is impossible to know is simply one type of agnosticism. The common claim across different brands of agnosticism is that we don't know either way (not that it is impossible to know - a belief which characterises strong agnosticism).

I stand corrected.

Be that as it may, I still stay by my original claim, which is that the majority of us are agnostic, and there are more agnostic theists than there are agnostic atheists.