Is Atheism based on Logic or Faith?

[tsig]

There is testimony that people have been contacted by God/god, make of it what you will, it is there. Yes much of it can be ascribed to "faulty reasoning/perception", but this does not show that it does not happen on occasion.
I would not go that far in ascribing what it is or does, but certainly that there is a rational train of thought resulting in the idea of an intelligent creator/fabricator/manipulator.
Simple, another kind or form of material, other than the physical material we are aware of, perhaps a primary material and ours is secondary.
Well yes if one considers that physical material is all that is or could exist. But Logic is an intellectual principle and presumably applies whatever the material circumstances.

I saw the same argument on one of the bigfoot threads and on the UFO threads before that.

 

[tsig]

This can actually happen in a vacuum.

I should have know that I used to work on absorber cooling units which have water boiling at 40 degrees f.

Here's an interesting video:

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...&mid=1FF6FCFBD838ACAD47D11FF6FCFBD838ACAD47D1

 

[Navigator]

That's not true.

The context is that Tsig asked you what you would consider to qualify as evidence. Then you demanded (not requested) that Tsig show you evidence that God does not exist, which, as far as I'm aware, is a proposition that Tsig has not argued in favor of.

The context makes the exchange look even more bizarre, and certainly, less favorable for your contention.

This is all summarized by the quotations in post #605.

How is this...
[show me] Some kind of evidence which tells me god does/doesn't exist.

...equate to demanding?

Again, it was more a response of irony in relation to the ongoing context prior to being asked 'what would I consider evidence?' in relation to my saying 'until evidence certain and irrefutably confirms either way,' in regard to my position is that it is unknown that god and/or gods do exist, and added that that the continuation of consciousness after the death of the body is also unknown

I was simply asking Tsig to show me evidence which Tsig might consider irrefutably confirms either way.

Tsig responded with the words 'show you what?'

to which I replied 'Some kind of evidence which tells me god does/doesn't exist.'

Taken as it is, in black and white there is no way that any 'demanding' can be construed from the interaction on anyone's part.

 

[Navigator]

I don't understand what you mean by the bolded.

We can positively verify that consciousness is a product of the brain. This is a solid scientific fact.

I don't argue that it looks this way, but that it still might not be this way, because so little is known about the nature of consciousness, it is unknown whether god exists or not and whether consciousness continues after the body has died.

It is precisely why my position exists.

Because (as I did explain) it is assumed that consciousness is a product of the brain due to the fact that it cannot be verified not to be but is still possibly something that uses the human and other terrestrial forms.



I mean consciousness.

ETA.
I have already mentioned it, but again - consciousness could possibly preexist and use the human instrument as something to experience [being human] through.
Another possibility is that the brain does indeed create consciousness, but the nature of consciousness might be that it continues to exist after the brain which creates it ceases to exist. The brain in that sense would act as a birthing chamber or seed.
In relation to that possibility, brains which were not of human origin could have created consciousness and that consciousness has been able to utilize the human instruments [bodies/brains] which evolved in a separate period of time far later than the original. The sheer extent of the physical universe and the time period between this [our now] moment and the big bang, makes this a possibility.

Just to be clear, I am not claiming any of these as beliefs or facts. I just think they might be possible. I haven't encountered any data that could show me these are not possible ideas.


If we knew everything, then possibilities would cease to be relevant.


The 'solid scientific fact' you refer to I am not aware of. I am aware that certain brain manipulations can induce certain states of awareness etc but I do not see how this solid scientific fact proves conclusively (gives us the ability to say we know with 100% certainty) therefore that consciousness does not continue after the body dies.

That is why I choose the position I do, which - as I say - is "I Don't Know"

 

[tsig]

How is this...
[show me] Some kind of evidence which tells me god does/doesn't exist.

...equate to demanding?

Again, it was more a response of irony in relation to the ongoing context prior to being asked 'what would I consider evidence?' in relation to my saying 'until evidence certain and irrefutably confirms either way,' in regard to my position is that it is unknown that god and/or gods do exist, and added that that the continuation of consciousness after the death of the body is also unknown

I was simply asking Tsig to show me evidence which Tsig might consider irrefutably confirms either way.

Tsig responded with the words 'show you what?'

to which I replied 'Some kind of evidence which tells me god does/doesn't exist.'

Taken as it is, in black and white there is no way that any 'demanding' can be construed from the interaction on anyone's part.

And we still don't know what you would consider as evidence.

 

[Brian-M]

Simple, another kind or form of material, other than the physical material we are aware of, perhaps a primary material and ours is secondary.

So, we have the material universe which has been demonstrated to be capable of incredibly complex behavior, and is the material from which our brains are made, alterations to which has been overwhelmingly demonstrated to result in alterations to our consciousness...

But instead you're arguing that consciousness might be a product of some previously undetected and possibly undetectable material which, despite having such an incredibly tenuous connection to the physical world that we are unable to detect it, is somehow manages to interact with living creatures?

 

[Dissolution]

As there are multiple god definitions and multiple styles of deity worship (monontheism, deism, polytheism, pantheism, etc.), how can anyone provide evidence that god doesn't exist?

 

[tsig]

As there are multiple god definitions and multiple styles of deity worship (monontheism, deism, polytheism, pantheism, etc.), how can anyone provide evidence that god doesn't exist?

Q. What kind of god do you say doesn't exist?

A. What kind you got?

 

[Navigator]

And we still don't know what you would consider as evidence.

The kind of evidence that conclusively would prove either way Tsig.
What other kind of evidence would suffice?

I don't expect in my lifetime any real advancement in science which will enable it to provide that evidence re continuation of consciousness after death of body, but who really knows?

Evidence re god, well that is even less likely to happen in my lifetime. Science is very interested in consciousness, but not so interested in god, as far as I am aware, which is very understandable since it does not even have a clear description of what god is other than the standard ones, such as 'the creator of the physical universe'. Which is why science would likely leave that one alone because there are plenty more mysteries 'easier' to solve.

The idea of god is not really an idea the method of science can examine. That is why science does not make statements about god.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

As there are multiple god definitions and multiple styles of deity worship (monontheism, deism, polytheism, pantheism, etc.), how can anyone provide evidence that god doesn't exist?

While it's impossible to rule out all possible positives, one can prove a specific negative by proving a conflicting and mutually exclusive positive. So yeah, I'd need to know what kind of god.

By the way, where did mikeb768 run off to?

 

[Tassman]

Yes, in principle. But not by humanity due to our inherent limitations. To illustrate by example, an ant investigates a mobile phone, is the ant likely to discover the use of this object, or rather accept it as a lump of some kind of inert resinous material and as such not a food source?

Likewise humanity might examine an atom or an apparent singularity and not discover its use, but determine its utility for humanity and leave it at that.

Both "in principle" AND practical application! Whether something is understood, partially understood or not understood at all due to our "inherent limitations", there is no reasonable justification for ever assuming that it’s supernatural. Until proven otherwise ALL reality is assumed to be natural and therefore open to scientific investigation.

Perhaps, but not with myself or Navigator.

The only alternative to “natural” is “supernatural”. Therefore you and Navigator are claiming that some things are supernatural. Evidence please?

Of course, but it happens non the less and science labs, parliaments and corporations are full of such people too.

We have no verified evidence people being “directly contacted by god”. We do have evidence of people claiming to have experienced such a phenomenon. But that’s quite different.

Yes, it's interesting work, but it is focussing primarily on the biological component of epiphany. It's not surprising that their results will show up a biological cause for the sensations involved in such an experience. This sounds familiar, rather like our recent discussion about the brain and the mind.

Well yes. Do you have credible evidence of a non-biological component of epiphany? What do you suggest it might be?

 

[Aridas]

The idea of god, afterlife and any other ideas which fit into the unknown/unknowable for now category interests me. Especially afterlife concepts because this body of mine isn't going to live forever and the fact that the is no absolute evidence the possibility remains.

Well... first, I have to ask what "absolute evidence" is or even could be, especially if you're trying to use evidence in a mildly scientific fashion? As for any unknown/unknowable for now idea? "You might die within the next couple minutes." How interesting is that topic when that's the only information that you actually have about it, with no reason to accept that it's in any way likely or that you could affect it in any way even if you were going to die? Certainly, you and others could speculate about you dying of a heart attack, a nuclear explosion, a massive burst of radiation that destroys all life on earth, you tripping over and impaling yourself on something or just landing in just the right way to break your neck... but why put emphasis on the "I don't know" when you already do know that you don't have any good reason to expect that it will be the case in the first place? For practical purposes with regards to deciding a course of action, your "leave it at I don't know and go no further" position just doesn't cut it in the overwhelming majority of "I don't knows," at that level, which is likely where the objections to your emphasis lie.

As I have said, it is something akin to a 'hobby' - and in relation to my position and understanding of my limitations, it is very reasonable to acknowledge what I do and don;t know and acknowledge that there is so much that I don't know which includes things which I cannot know.

There's nothing wrong with having hobbies, regardless, and nothing wrong with acknowledging the inherent uncertainty in how we interpret reality.

See above. X is a claim, offered without evidence. In the absence of that evidence, the null hypothesis stands, until and unless evidence is offered to support X. The possibility that X may be true can be applied to any and every fanciful idea if you stretch a point far enough, but it has no practical value. It certainly doesn't mean, as Navigator has previously argued, that no one should express a clear opinion on the existence of fairies, unicorns or gods because they may be technical possibilities.

If X is just a claim that something's possible, the null hypothesis can be reasonably considered to be X, with pointing out the logical impossibility of X being the requirement to show that that claim is wrong. I will agree that it has no practical value, though, and that it should never be used to argue against what's presented as opinion, so long as they're not actually arguing for the impossibility of X.

A hypothetical and theoretical acknowledgement that there might be things we don't know about is par for the course. Attempting to reflect that in either language or actions is less than helpful.

It is par for the course and generally unnecessary, but it doesn't hurt for it to be pointed out occasionally, so long as it's not being used to suggest that something actually is the case.

 

[Tassman]

The burden of proof here is in relation to what may be possible or what may not be possible.

Navigator is saying that X may be possible.

You are saying that X is not possible.

Nope! I've NEVER said that. I've said throughout that X is possible but improbable. In Navigator’s “god” example, I claimed its existence was possible by acknowledging that “god doesn't exist” was a falsifiable proposition. It can be falsified by producing substantiated evidence of god existing. The burden-of-proof rests with the one making the positive claim.

Or are you saying that X may not be possible?

"may" does not require proof, "is" does require proof.

Anything from pixies to unicorns to gods may exist. But without credible evidence their existence remains improbable to a greater or lessor degree. “May exist” is meaningless in this context.

A tea pot may be orbiting in the asteroid belt. This is reasonable because someone might have put one there by launching one in a rocket and placing it in orbit.

A tea pot may not be in orbit in the asteroid belt. This is reasonable because there would not be one there unless someone put one there.

It is not reasonable to claim without evidence that a teapot is orbiting in the asteroid belt. IF such a teapot was actually discovered then your explanations could be considered “reasonable”. But only then!

Neither of these maybe's requires proof, because they are discussions of the possibilities, not discussions of what actually is or is not in that region of space.

If someone were to state that there is a tea pot orbiting in the asteroid belt, no one would believe them, unless they could prove it, either by seeing it through a telescope, or testimony and evidence of the rocket launch with a tea pot as a cargo etc.

Therefore there is only a burden of proof required if someone says there is a god.

Navigator was demanding that I provide evidence that such “possibilities” didn't exist and this is impossible. He seems to give equal weight to ALL possible things existing, whereas there are varying degrees of probability ranging from highly probable (e.g. the sun will rise tomorrow) to highly improbable (e.g. there’s a teapot orbiting in the asteroid belt).

 

[Aridas]

Both "in principle" AND practical application! Whether something is understood, partially understood or not understood at all due to our "inherent limitations", there is no reasonable justification for ever assuming that it’s supernatural. Until proven otherwise ALL reality is assumed to be natural and therefore open to scientific investigation.

I'll agree with this.

The only alternative to “natural” is “supernatural”. Therefore you and Navigator are claiming that some things are supernatural. Evidence please?

He's already clarified what I thought would be fairly obvious. That he was claiming that he and Navigator already understood that all things could be considered natural. Of course, I am mildly curious why he used this method of doing so when much of what he's done is pointing out the just as obvious.

 

[Tassman]

I'm curious about what tests that you would propose that would validly address the issue, incidentally. Yes, it's potentially falsifiable, but, even if one or more gods did exist, there's no particular reason to believe that any particular test or set of tests would be able to realistically be able to detect it or any of them, unless you're going to specifically target a subset of god concepts, rather than the category as a whole.

Well one could envisage fantastic happenings such as a booming voice from clouds, or the stars lining up to form the words “I am God and I exist”. These things should not be difficult to the omnipotent creator of the universe and would effectively falsify the claim that god didn't exist.

Realistically I don’t know of any such tests we mere mortals can apply, but the potential for falsification of the claim remains nevertheless and this is what’s required.

If counted as the null hypothesis, sure. It's the option that the evidence points to, regardless, such as it can.

If there is no evidence for something existing it is reasonable to assume that it doesn't although the possibility, no matter how remote, always remains that it does.

As I noted before, "possible," when dealt with in the sense that it's being used by punshhh and Navigator, should be treated as not being impossible based on the less than complete knowledge at one's disposal. That really leaves only things that are logically impossible as impossible. The burden of proof, for that level of claim, can be reasonably considered to be on the one trying to say that something's impossible. The Russell's teapot argument is far more useful when applied to rather stronger claims, namely, whether one should accept something to actually be the case, rather than merely "possible." After all, the teapot postulated is already "possible," just not reasonable to accept as actually the case. That's actually one of the reasons why the argument is viable when applied to unfalsifiable god claims.

True. And this is what I've argued. I've never said that “something’s impossible”. I introduced the “teapot “argument because Navigator was demanding that I disprove his claims of things possibly existing - including god possibly existing. Russell’s argument specifically refutes the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the skeptic

 

[Aridas]

Well one could envisage fantastic happenings such as a booming voice from clouds, or the stars lining up to form the words “I am God and I exist”. These things should not be difficult to the omnipotent creator of the universe and would effectively falsify the claim that god didn't exist.

Those would work for a subset of gods that are claimed to be omnipotent, with a few others thrown in, too... but it's worth remembering that most god concepts, even of the ones that have been seriously put forth, are neither omnipotent nor creators of the universe. On the other end of things, both of the examples you named can be pulled off with trickery, especially when dealing with a much less advanced or more credulous population.

Realistically I don’t know of any such tests we mere mortals can apply, but the potential for falsification of the claim remains nevertheless and this is what’s required.

Potential for some subsets, sure. I really don't consider that to be particularly scientific, myself, though, especially when a generic term is being used that actually denotes more than just the subsets that could be reasonably addressed. That it's logical to not accept the gods to be the case given the lack of valid evidence for them, I wouldn't dispute. That's it's specifically scientific when encompassing completely unfalsifiable god concepts, though, is a point that I would disagree with. Certainly, numerous god concepts have been outright falsified and numerous other ones could be... but the examples you proposed would outright falsify numerous other god concepts where the god in question would simply not do those things, whether or not they had the ability.

 

[Navigator]

Well... first, I have to ask what "absolute evidence" is or even could be, especially if you're trying to use evidence in a mildly scientific fashion?

I use the word evidence in relation to scientific method. In relation to claiming god exists or god does not exist, the evidence for either would have to be absolute, otherwise my position remains as it is.

As for any unknown/unknowable for now idea? "You might die within the next couple minutes." How interesting is that topic when that's the only information that you actually have about it, with no reason to accept that it's in any way likely or that you could affect it in any way even if you were going to die? Certainly, you and others could speculate about you dying of a heart attack, a nuclear explosion, a massive burst of radiation that destroys all life on earth, you tripping over and impaling yourself on something or just landing in just the right way to break your neck... but why put emphasis on the "I don't know" when you already do know that you don't have any good reason to expect that it will be the case in the first place?

The topic is interesting because I think it is. It does not impact on me that others think it isn't. Hobbies are like that.

I don't find the topic 'I might die in the next 2 minutes' interesting at all...I don't think there would be enough time to get interested.

I don;t particularly find the topic 'I wonder how I will die etc' that interesting either. I find the topic ' My body will die one day' more interesting.

I don't know how my body is going to die.

For practical purposes with regards to deciding a course of action, your "leave it at I don't know and go no further" position just doesn't cut it in the overwhelming majority of "I don't knows," at that level, which is likely where the objections to your emphasis lie.

I don't know is not about leaving it at that. It is quite natural I think when it comes to things we don't know and are interested in them that we find out what we can about them. In fact taking the neutral position allows me to go places and check out data without any particular bias for or against that data, that those with beliefs won't deem worthy of contemplation. The objections you speak of are perhaps evidence of that.

There's nothing wrong with having hobbies, regardless, and nothing wrong with acknowledging the inherent uncertainty in how we interpret reality.

You are speaking to the converted on that one.

 

[Navigator]

I introduced the “teapot “argument because Navigator was demanding that I disprove his claims of things possibly existing - including god possibly existing. Russell’s argument specifically refutes the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the skeptic

This has been debunked already. I made no such demand.

 

[Aridas]

I use the word evidence in relation to scientific method. In relation to claiming god exists or god does not exist, the evidence for either would have to be absolute, otherwise my position remains as it is.

It's worth noting, then, that given science, the evidence is never absolute for anything. It can be considered to be overwhelmingly powerful, but never absolute. Does that make it any more or less reasonable to hold something as likely to be true and treat it as such for all intensive purposes?

 

[punshhh]

Many of us would argue that the concept of God IS exclusively derived from human imagination.

Yes and I have pointed out that the concept is specifically describing something in a causal chain of events in the external world, whatever imagination is adopted to refer to it. such a thing if it existed would have existence independent of what goes on in people's minds.

Neither of these derivations are necessarily non-imaginary either.

Yes, there may be some imagination involved, but in the case of someone being contacted by god, it takes the form of a vision primarily and in the case of rational thought, it is an extrapolation from observations in nature.

Hallucinations are a form of direct experience that is purely imaginary. You can also produce all kinds of imaginary concepts through philosophical or rational thought, such as tachyons or luminiferous aether.

Yes, a vision is rather like a hallucination, but there is no way I can see which can discount the occasional Divine revelation.

Although, I'd like to see an explanation of how God can be derived from rational thought without use of logical fallacies such as argument from incredulity or argument from ignorance.

I have given this example numerous times already so will keep it brief.

It can be observed that causality and agency occur naturally in the world we find ourselves in. Therefore it is rational to consider that these two phenomena occur on a more universal scale, this would include the possibility of intelligent fabricators. Such things could in certain circumstances equate to gods.