Dawkins' Spectrum of God's Existence

[Alric]

Agreed, I am simply looking at a 7 as the equivelent of a 1 but at the other end of the scale and I can't see one of them (a dedicated and true 1) changing their mind even in the face of extreme evidence.

But where do you get that from?

 

[Menalitus]

The scale states "Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one.' " (My Bold of course)

Now my idea of a 1 is the kind of God believer who defends their belief in the face of (to me) very convincing arguments that they are wrong (as seen in these and many other forums), it also indictes some inability to accept that they even could be wrong in their belief.

The scale states that a 7 holds the "same conviction" as a 1 ergo they are the same and neither would accept their 'wrongness' even if extremely convincing (to a non 1 or 7) proof was provided.

Maybe I have got it wrong, it is simply my interpretation after all, however Dawkins seems to agree and I understand that he created the scale so probably knows what he meant.

 

[Alric]

I think the poll is flawed because it presumes that "knowing there is no god" is an inflexible position. 7 should be Strong Atheist: I believe there is no God.

 

[Menalitus]

Maybe but we are not discussing how the scale could be changed we are commenting on our position in it. The answer is i suppose, like anything else always dependant on interpretation of the question... I do think it is appropriate to have an equally inflexible view point at both ends of the spectrum though.

As an aside I love that most people (in the discussion) have ignored point 8 on the scale, I guess that is for the truly dedicated space cadets and homeopaths...

 

[linusrichard]

I think the poll is flawed because it presumes that "knowing there is no god" is an inflexible position. 7 should be Strong Atheist: I believe there is no God.

5, 6, and 7 are all specific cases of the statement "I believe there is no God."

 

[Alric]

7 believes there is no god. 6 and 5 are degrees of waffling and stating the obvious. That if there is new data you are willing to change your mind. That should be true of any position.

 

[CFLarsen]

I know they can't exist because we have no knowledge of what they are. Gods or "things".

No, you can't say that they can't exist because of that. That is just an appeal to ignorance.

7 believes there is no god. 6 and 5 are degrees of waffling and stating the obvious. That if there is new data you are willing to change your mind. That should be true of any position.

But you also said:

If any evidence or mechanism was at some point presented I would be the first one to switch to 6.

So why are you are 7?

 

[Blodwin]

7 believes there is no god. 6 and 5 are degrees of waffling and stating the obvious. That if there is new data you are willing to change your mind. That should be true of any position.

There is a way for a god to exist that I think would be plausible to most atheists. We could be living in a computer simulation, and the intelligent entity running the simulation would be indistinguishable from an all powerful god as far as we're concerned. It would likely be impossible for us to have any knowledge of this entity unless it chose to let us know, in which case our musings are purely hypothetical, but it would be intellectually dishonest to say that it's impossible. So If we're truly being open minded sceptics we would have to vote for 6.

 

[H3LL]

No, you can't say that they can't exist because of that. That is just an appeal to ignorance.

How can you claim existence of something for which there is no meaningful or useful knowledge, description or evidence.

I have no idea what they are that, you seem to claim, there may appear, at some obscure, highly improbable, undefined point in possible futures, some evidence of.

I'm not ignorant of the fact there is no meaningful or useful knowledge, description or evidence of something that can't be defined, so not an appeal to ignorance.

As I've said before, you have no limit on what you will consider plausible. Everything is plausible and everything is possible and nothing has a probability of zero. Absense seems to mean almost not there to you.

Is there anything you would consider impossible?

If so...what?

.

 

[Sceptic Realist]

Sorry, looking at the wrong page.

 

[linusrichard]

7 believes there is no god. 6 and 5 are degrees of waffling and stating the obvious. That if there is new data you are willing to change your mind. That should be true of any position.

I am a 6 and I believe there is no God. No waffling. It's better to be a 6 and state the obvious than to be a 7 and deny the obvious.

 

[CFLarsen]

How can you claim existence of something for which there is no meaningful or useful knowledge, description or evidence.

That's not what you said. You said that:

I know they can't exist because we have no knowledge of what they are.

Something can exist without you knowing what it is. E.g., you may not know what thunder is, but you know it exists.

I have no idea what they are that, you seem to claim, there may appear, at some obscure, highly improbable, undefined point in possible futures, some evidence of.

I'm not ignorant of the fact there is no meaningful or useful knowledge, description or evidence of something that can't be defined, so not an appeal to ignorance.

As I've said before, you have no limit on what you will consider plausible.

Everything is plausible and everything is possible and nothing has a probability of zero. Absense seems to mean almost not there to you.

Is there anything you would consider impossible?

If so...what?

I am not equating plausible with possible. That's where you go wrong.

Everything is not plausible. It is not plausible that the Earth is flat as a pancake. It is, however, possible - but that would require a whole new evidence-based form of science, of course.

 

[Almo]

CFL , if you click on the figures that represent the number of voters, all is revealed..........

What happened to the warning when voting in a public poll? Or are all polls public now? Not that I really care if people know how I voted on this poll, but there are some polls where I do care.

 

[H3LL]

I am not equating plausible with possible. That's where you go wrong.

Everything is not plausible. It is not plausible that the Earth is flat as a pancake. It is, however, possible - but that would require a whole new evidence-based form of science, of course.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

What was it that you would consider impossible?

I missed your answer.

.

 

[CFLarsen]

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Do you really think plausible means the same as possible?

What was it that you would consider impossible?

I missed your answer.

.

No, you already got it: In science, nothing is impossible per se - but if some things are to be true, we will need another way of thinking what science is. With evidence on top, please.

Do you understand my point about thunder? That you realize that something can exist without you havin no knowledge of what it is?

 

[H3LL]

Do you understand my point about thunder? That you realize that something can exist without you havin no knowledge of what it is?

No I don't. Without any other knowledge I can hear and feel thunder. There is evidence that it exists. Even without calling it thunder there is still that noisy, shaky thing. I have knowledge that it's noisy and shaky.

From other knowledge I can speculate on what it is. Is it a distant falling rock? Is it someone tipping sheet iron? Is it a rock concert nearby? Is it stampeding wildebeest? Is it related to the flash I saw a few seconds ago? I can then seek corroborating evidence which may or may not be correct.

Wadda-you-know? It was Mr. Fingle tipping corrugated iron into his field.

I fail to see the connection.


You tell me the nature of the existence or possible existence or plausible existence of my "thing".

You think it can exist?

You don't think it's anything other than imaginary?

You got $100?

.

 

[CFLarsen]

No I don't. Without any other knowledge I can hear and feel thunder. There is evidence that it exists. Even without calling it thunder there is still that noisy, shaky thing. I have knowledge that it's noisy and shaky.

From other knowledge I can speculate on what it is. Is it a distant falling rock? Is it someone tipping sheet iron? Is it a rock concert nearby? Is it stampeding wildebeest? Is it related to the flash I saw a few seconds ago?

Wadda-you-know? It was Mr. Fingle tipping corrugated iron into his field.

I fail to see the connection.

You fail to see that there are two issues: The phenomenon and the explanation of the phenomenon.

You have the noise in the sky - the phenomenon - and you have the explanation of the phenomenon - be it Thor, riding his chariot, or the sound of rapidly expanding air from lightning.

You can realize that thunder can exist without you having no knowledge of what it is. Do you understand that?

You tell me the nature of the existence or possible existence or plausible existence of my "thing".

You think it can exist?

You don't think it's anything other than imaginary?

You got $100?

I have no idea what you are saying here.

Do you really think plausible means the same as possible?

 

[H3LL]

No, you already got it: In science, nothing is impossible per se -

Then it's science and/or technology... not a god.

Google has many characteristics of gods .. but isn't a god.

.

 

[H3LL]

Do you really think plausible means the same as possible?

No, I think you think implausible means possible.

I have no idea what you are saying here.

Well done...You have finally got it.

.

 

[CFLarsen]

Oh, well.