Dawkins' Spectrum of God's Existence

[H3LL]

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

Erm...Yes. If I have no sensory perception and no one around able to indicate what thunder is...like me being dead.

Unfortunately, gods have an identical scenario while being alive and well.

I'll concede your point to you with the qualifier:

Gods exist in the same way that thunder does to a dead person.

I'm still a 7.

.


ETA:

Oh, well.

What's that mean?

.

 

[CFLarsen]

Erm...Yes. If I have no sensory perception and no one around able to indicate what thunder is...like me being dead.

Unfortunately, gods have an identical scenario while being alive and well.

I'll concede your point to you with the qualifier:

Gods exist in the same way that thunder does to a dead person.

I'm still a 7.

.

Let's try this:

Ball lightning.

Is that a phenomenon, yes or no?

Do you know what it is, yes or no?

ETA:
What's that mean?

It means that, unless you find out what you mean, why continue?

 

[Egg]

I am not equating plausible with possible.

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.

That's an interesting and pertinent distinction and leaves me wondering about this model of belief.

I guess what this is suggesting is a belief in a probability. I would have thought that the skeptical position would be to say that without empirical evidence we are unable to even apply a rough objective probability and therefore Planet X could be the only possible answer here. Anything else is coming dangerously close to making an unprovable claim - how does one go about proving that the probability of the non-existence of God is 99%?

We could talk in terms of a purely subjective probability, but now I'm wondering if that carries pretty much the same meaning as plausibility. In which case, perhaps a better question would be "In terms of a percentage, how plausible do you personally consider the existence of God(s) to be?".

This would also leave out a slightly blurry concept of what belief actually is and how it works (is it something that is an on/off mechanism or are there degrees of belief? Can people "sort-of" believe something? How would one classify suspending disbelief or a tentative belief? Is doubt mutually exclusive of belief or can someone believe something and doubt it at the same time?).

That said, I suppose something could be entirely plausible but extremely unlikely.

 

[PixyMisa]

IMHO it's a shame to see so many people choosing 7. Again IMO it is at least as bad as a 1, as some people (inc Dawkins) have already suggested.

How can a logical person make a statement of complete (dis)belief in anything without any evidence? I would have the same feelings about someone who declares a absolute disbelief in God that I would about someone who declares the opposite, it shows the same lack of imagination.

As I said earlier, I'm only a 6.9 with respect to the abstract concept of god. When it comes to God, though, we're talking about an something that, even when when we are presented with a defintion, is logically inconsistent at best.

In which case, I'm a 7.

 

[H3LL]

Chalk and cheese.

Has the thunder analogy run out of steam?

What's next.... Sun dogs, blue moons, kraken?

Thunder too real?

I know what balls are...I know what lightning is.. I know what the ball lightning is.... evidence is inconclusive.... so what?

I'm not a-thunderist or a-ball-lightningist.

Lightning having funny shapes is not implausible, not impossible, not improbable and evidence is available to let me have knowledge of what it may be.

Simple questions on ball lightning can be easily answered:

Where is it?
Usually in the atmosphere and sometimes in lab' experiments.

What's it look like?
It has characteristics of a ball and lightning

What's it do?
It's lightning forming in the shape of a ball.

etc... etc... etc...

Compare that with the Christian God as an example:

Where is it?
Inside the universe, outside the universe, inside me, outside me, in other people, everywhere, in church, not in church, part of time and space, outside time and space, split into two, split into three, one single entity, in heaven (wherever that is), not in heaven, in hell (wherever that is), not in hell, in heaven and hell but not on Earth, all of these, some of these or none of these.

What's it look like?
A man, a woman, a man and a woman, androgenous, not human looking, human looking, no corporeal body, corporeal body, everything, nothing, what he feels like, what I feel like, what a priest says, an alien, man with a beard, woman with a beard, a cat, Jesus, holy ghost, all of these, some of these or none of these.

What's it do?
Nothing, everything, occasional miracles (whatever they are), constant miracles, no miracles, done it all and now resting, constantly checking everything, occasionally checking everything, sometimes checking something, never checks anything, only does something if you ask, only does something if you don't ask, only does stuff when nobody is looking, only does something when everybody is looking, only does something when certain people are looking, always answers prayers, sometimes answers prayers, never answers prayers because it has a plan, loves you, hates you, ambivalent. All of them, none of them or some of them.

etc...etc..etc...


And this thing exists at some extreme limit of possibility/probability?!?


...or it's indefinable, improbable, impossible, imaginary and doesn't exist?


.

 

[modecom]

It appears that religion (god beliefs) is getting a special pass once again.

Mr apologist (Claus) claims anyone who voted 7 "Is not a skeptic". This is the same person who argued in another thread that you can have god beliefs and "still be a skeptic". Seems a little hypocritical to me, actually it seems totally hypocritical.

I voted 7 for the same reason I would vote 7 if the choice was:-

'I know there are no body thetans, with the same conviction as Tom Cruise "knows" there are.'​

I know there is no god. Prove me wrong.​

 

[Egg]

I know there is no god. Prove me wrong.

You've just shifted the burden of proof onto yourself there. You've outlined the issue of the 7 position from a skeptical point of view. If we are to take your claim seriously, you need to provide the evidence to back up your claim. It's not for others to prove you wrong.

As you suggest, it's no less a claim than if I said "I know there is a FSM/IPU/God. Prove me wrong."

 

[CFLarsen]

That's an interesting and pertinent distinction and leaves me wondering about this model of belief.

I guess what this is suggesting is a belief in a probability. I would have thought that the skeptical position would be to say that without empirical evidence we are unable to even apply a rough objective probability and therefore Planet X could be the only possible answer here. Anything else is coming dangerously close to making an unprovable claim - how does one go about proving that the probability of the non-existence of God is 99%?

That would be up to the person making that particular claim, of course.

We could talk in terms of a purely subjective probability, but now I'm wondering if that carries pretty much the same meaning as plausibility. In which case, perhaps a better question would be "In terms of a percentage, how plausible do you personally consider the existence of God(s) to be?".

This would also leave out a slightly blurry concept of what belief actually is and how it works (is it something that is an on/off mechanism or are there degrees of belief? Can people "sort-of" believe something? How would one classify suspending disbelief or a tentative belief? Is doubt mutually exclusive of belief or can someone believe something and doubt it at the same time?).

That said, I suppose something could be entirely plausible but extremely unlikely.

Can you give an example?

As I said earlier, I'm only a 6.9 with respect to the abstract concept of god. When it comes to God, though, we're talking about an something that, even when when we are presented with a defintion, is logically inconsistent at best.

In which case, I'm a 7.

But that's because you demand that all claims from all religious believers must be internally consistent.

You would de facto demand more of religious believers than you would of scientists. Scientists do not all agree on all aspects of science - which is the strength of science.

Chalk and cheese.

Has the thunder analogy run out of steam?

What's next.... Sun dogs, blue moons, kraken?

The kraken was probably a giant squid. What about this mythical creature call a mermaid? Turned out to be a walrus or maybe a seal.

Thunder too real?

I know what balls are...I know what lightning is.. I know what the ball lightning is.... evidence is inconclusive.... so what?

That's the point: You have phenomena without knowing what they are.

I'm not a-thunderist or a-ball-lightningist.

Lightning having funny shapes is not implausible, not impossible, not improbable and evidence is available to let me have knowledge of what it may be.

But there is a huge difference between knowledge of what it may be, and what it really is.

Simple questions on ball lightning can be easily answered:

Where is it?
Usually in the atmosphere and sometimes in lab' experiments.

What's it look like?
It has characteristics of a ball and lightning

What's it do?
It's lightning forming in the shape of a ball.

etc... etc... etc...

Compare that with the Christian God as an example:

Where is it?
Inside the universe, outside the universe, inside me, outside me, in other people, everywhere, in church, not in church, part of time and space, outside time and space, split into two, split into three, one single entity, in heaven (wherever that is), not in heaven, in hell (wherever that is), not in hell, in heaven and hell but not on Earth, all of these, some of these or none of these.

What's it look like?
A man, a woman, a man and a woman, androgenous, not human looking, human looking, no corporeal body, corporeal body, everything, nothing, what he feels like, what I feel like, what a priest says, an alien, man with a beard, woman with a beard, a cat, Jesus, holy ghost, all of these, some of these or none of these.

What's it do?
Nothing, everything, occasional miracles (whatever they are), constant miracles, no miracles, done it all and now resting, constantly checking everything, occasionally checking everything, sometimes checking something, never checks anything, only does something if you ask, only does something if you don't ask, only does stuff when nobody is looking, only does something when everybody is looking, only does something when certain people are looking, always answers prayers, sometimes answers prayers, never answers prayers because it has a plan, loves you, hates you, ambivalent. All of them, none of them or some of them.

etc...etc..etc...

What is a proton?

Where is it?
Inside the universe, inside me, outside me, in other people, etc....etc....

And this thing exists at some extreme limit of possibility/probability?!?

If you want to be a skeptic, that's what you have to accept, yes.

...or it's indefinable, improbable, impossible, imaginary and doesn't exist?

The kraken was all these.

It appears that religion (god beliefs) is getting a special pass once again.

Not at all.

Mr apologist (Claus) claims anyone who voted 7 "Is not a skeptic". This is the same person who argued in another thread that you can have god beliefs and "still be a skeptic". Seems a little hypocritical to me, actually it seems totally hypocritical.

Not at all. Had you read the thread, you would know that unless you claim evidence of your god - such as an interfering god - it is perfectly skeptical to believe in such a god - if that's what you want to call him. You could also call him your imaginary bartender, who always listens and understands.

I voted 7 for the same reason I would vote 7 if the choice was:-

'I know there are no body thetans, with the same conviction as Tom Cruise "knows" there are.'​

I know there is no god. Prove me wrong.​

What will it take for you to convince you otherwise?

 

[Alric]

I can show you a whole universe where a god is nowhere to be seen. You've got something?

 

[modecom]

You've just shifted the burden of proof onto yourself there. You've outlined the issue of the 7 position from a skeptical point of view. If we are to take your claim seriously, you need to provide the evidence to back up your claim. It's not for others to prove you wrong.

As you suggest, it's no less a claim than if I said "I know there is a FSM/IPU/God. Prove me wrong."

I agree with you. My "prove me wrong" remark was aimed at the below post and was meant tongue in cheek. I should have quoted it in my post.

Why are you putting the probability to 0? You are equalling the absence of evidence with evidence of absence. I don´t. I agree that there is no evidence for god(s). That´s why I am a 6. To be a 7, I´d need the 100 % proof that (god)s don´t exist. Got some?

 

[CFLarsen]

I can show you a whole universe where a god is nowhere to be seen. You've got something?

I'm not claiming that a god is to be seen.

What about my question to you in post #107?

 

[Alric]

So why are you are 7?

Because I didn't know inflexibility and wishing to cover all your bases were assumed in the poll.

 

[CFLarsen]

Because I didn't know inflexibility and wishing to cover all your bases were assumed in the poll.

So, you would not switch to 6, if any evidence or mechanism was at some point presented?

 

[biostudent]

I picked #6 because while I'm pretty darn sure there is no god of any kind, I'm also a scientist (in training, mind you) and am used to never being 100% sure about anything. (I definitely don't do any form of pascal's wager, though. I mean, I'm very sure that atheism is the way to go.) I will remain an atheist until someone offers unquestionable proof that there is a god. I expect to be waiting an incredibly long time for that proof...

Not that any of that matters to me, though. I don't need religion in my daily life. In fact, I wish that religion would just go away. One thing that annoys me most about religion is that I'm never allowed to talk about my atheism, not even in my own family. I am considered a heathen. I can't even talk to my own husband about it, grrr.

 

[Egg]

That said, I suppose something could be entirely plausible but extremely unlikely.

Can you give an example?

Off the top of my head...someone might claim they drew 4 aces from a deck of cards in a game last night. Whilst this would be highly improbable, it is not impossible. If you then go to include circumstantial factors, like that perhaps you know the person claiming wouldn't usually lie about such a thing or had no reason to lie or other witnesses backing up the claim etc. then them drawing the 4 aces might be seen as pretty plausible.

I'm not sure this works as any kind of analogy to my point though .

 

[Alric]

So, you would not switch to 6, if any evidence or mechanism was at some point presented?

The other way around. Right now it is not probable there is a god. Therefore leaving that probability open is irrational.

 

[Egg]

I agree with you. My "prove me wrong" remark was aimed at the below post and was meant tongue in cheek. I should have quoted it in my post.

Fair enough - I didn't pick that up.

In a way, I too was being a little tongue in cheek too. I'm not sure it's entirely fair to always equate a belief with a claim. For example, I know there's a cat on my lap right now (at least if I am to trust my senses at all). I would be in no position to present this as an empirical fact on a forum of skeptics, nor would I particularly feel the need to try should someone disbelieve me.

In terms of God though, while I can understand the 1 position in so far as someone could have such an experience or multiple experiences of various kinds which they conclude (rightly or wrongly) can only have come from God, the 7 position leaves me a little baffled. What, other than some kind of revelation or faith, could lead someone to say that they know 100% that God doesn't exist?

 

[Alric]

I don't know how anyone can speak of having to prove or disprove the existence of imaginary things. Or us there anything that would lead you to believe god is anything but imaginary?

 

[Egg]

In fact, I wish that religion would just go away. One thing that annoys me most about religion is that I'm never allowed to talk about my atheism, not even in my own family. I am considered a heathen. I can't even talk to my own husband about it, grrr.

I sympathise with your position, but for some reason seem to be compelled to point out that if there was no religion, I don't suppose your atheism would be a subject that needed much discussion - just like I don't really feel any need to talk about my lack of a belief in Kaplankitwinkyminky.

 

[CFLarsen]

Off the top of my head...someone might claim they drew 4 aces from a deck of cards in a game last night. Whilst this would be highly improbable, it is not impossible. If you then go to include circumstantial factors, like that perhaps you know the person claiming wouldn't usually lie about such a thing or had no reason to lie or other witnesses backing up the claim etc. then them drawing the 4 aces might be seen as pretty plausible.

I'm not sure this works as any kind of analogy to my point though .

That would depend on what you think is "highly improbable". "1 in a million" occurrences happen 300 times a day in the US alone!

The probability of drawing 4 aces in a row is (4/52)*(3/51)*(2/50)*(1/49) = 1/270725 ~ 0.00037%

The probability of getting a royal straight flush in a 5-card poker game is 649,739 : 1 = 0.000154% *

Combine that with the massive number of card plays at any given moment around the world. Drawing 4 aces in a row happens all the time!

The other way around. Right now it is not probable there is a god. Therefore leaving that probability open is irrational.

That doesn't answer the question:

If any evidence or mechanism was at some point presented, would you switch to 6, yes or no?