Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Beth]

You would have a point if God were something we would not expect to have any normal experience of at all.

But God has never been that. Just ask the folks who have faith in Him.

Correct. They do not expect to have any normal experience with.

It's more like this:

I've looked everwhere in this room and haven't detected any live elephants.
A live elephant is too big to be hidden anywhere in this room.
Therefore, there are no live elephants in this room.

I don't think that god is considered 'too big' to be hidden in the room. I think god is usually considered to be immaterial. Not of this world. Would you ever be able to find the number pi in your living room? Is it too big to hide there? Or is it just another silly question that is only asked by small children too young to understand and pedantic anonymous people on the internet?

I think FattyCatty made the point better than I can though.

Sling - I nominated your post.

 

[punshhh]

Okay, that's fine then. We will go about with our fundamental practice and apply it to the god question to come to the conclusion "There is no god." You will continue to approach the question in any way you like but inn the end the burden of proof is on you and you will have to use those fundamental practices to show us this god if you care enough to.

Yes I respect your conclusion and I am not attempting to show god. I am showing that we cannot show that there is no god.

 

[punshhh]

Logically? No, problem not solved; problem introduced.

Logically, you beg the question from the off. You can't assume a god or attribute a god until you show a god exists. After you do that, you can speak of its logic. But you can't logically grant any attributes or intent to an agency you can't show.

I am not presenting a logical argument here, I'm defining god or something equivalent to god.

I am merely speculating that there may be an unknown god exhibiting principles/attributes observable in nature.

Nature is the only artifact or piece of evidence we have. Analysis of nature reveals laws and principles intrinsic to the form that nature takes.

When considering what exists beyond human perception these laws and principles are all we have to work with.

When addressing gods we are considering an entity in which the principle attributes are intelligence and creation.

In observation of nature entities with the attributes of intelligence and creation can be observed.

It is therefore reasonable to consider that said god is consistent with natural law.


* I have already pointed out my reservations regarding the concept of creation as in first cause. A first cause is illogical.

I propose that a god can be a creator in the generally understood definition of creation, ie as an artist creating a painting, an inventor creating a keyboard for example. This form of creation can be observed in nature frequently.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Yes I respect your conclusion and I am not attempting to show god. I am showing that we cannot show that there is no god.

And you are only able to do so by defining God as 'something that we cannot show does not exist' and nothing else. It's meaningless wordplay and you can't show that your 'god' is actually any more a god than it is a clargelfulp.

 

[SusanB-M1]

Zooterkin #1140

Thank you for mentioning the link. I have in fact sent an e-mail to RNIB's Tech Support asking what they advise.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Well, I give this a lot of thought, as people are important to me. Concepts are tools, but people feel and think and reason.

Concepts can't be hurt by my disdain or my laughter; people can.

I see where you are coming from but other than being polite to spare people's feelings is there a meaningful difference between 'a person who holds stupid ideas' and 'a stupid person'?

I mean, would we differentiate between some who happens to play music for a living and a musician, or someone who hates people of other races from a racist?

 

[Leumas]

I see where you are coming from but other than being polite to spare people's feelings is there a meaningful difference between 'a person who holds stupid ideas' and 'a stupid person'?

I mean, would we differentiate between some who happens to play music for a living and a musician, or someone who hates people of other races from a racist?

There are people who are intelligent in many things and stupid in many things. It is not an all out intelligence or stupidity.

Everyone has something they are stupid about. I agree that when it comes to religion it is an epidemic....but religious people can be (not often though ) intelligent despite their religiosity.


Alleviating Cognitive Dissonance invariably causes people to do stupid things while trying to dull the pain of waking up from the stupor of their delusion.

 

[punshhh]

And you are only able to do so by defining God as 'something that we cannot show does not exist' and nothing else. It's meaningless wordplay and you can't show that your 'god' is actually any more a god than it is a clargelfulp.

Piggy is making the positive claim "Gods don't exist".

All I am saying is "you cannot know this" given humanity's limited perception.

The burden of proof is with piggy to explain how he can know there are no gods. If he knows this, he can tell us what he knows.

All his explanations so far relate only to gods as imagined by humans, not to unknown gods.

 

[Leumas]

Piggy is making the positive claim "Gods don't exist".

All I am saying is "you cannot know this" given humanity's limited perception.

The burden of proof is with piggy to explain how he can know there are no gods. If he knows this, he can tell us what he knows.

All his explanations so far relate only to gods as imagined by humans, not to unknown gods.

Punshhh,

What you are saying is not quite right.

If you and I are in a room and I make a statement that there is no XXXX in the room then the statement is either correct or not.

But since XXXX does not mean anything then you cannot LOGICALLY decide whether my statement is incorrect or not.

There is no way that you can LOGICALLY decide unless you have a CONCRETE definition for what XXXX is.


NOW.....the argument you are making is that there may be something in the universe that we cannot define and do not know.

That means NOTHING..... it is a meaningless statement.

The moment you say "unknown gods" you have in effect defined what it is.....it is a NOT-god.

Thus what in effect you are saying is there may be NOT-GOD.....but that is just like saying there may be a NOT-ELEPHANT in the room.

Yes.... I agree..... there may be a NOT-elephant in the room.....but definitely there is no elephant.

What is a NOT-Elephant???? Well anything and everything that is not an Elephant.

So you can see that your basis for the argument you are making is faulty.

For sure....there may be all sorts of things in the universe that are NOT-god.

And you have already agreed with Piggy that there is no god according to any definition humans have.

Thus as far as God is concerned you agree that there is none.

So now when it comes to a NOT-god.....you need to define what that is before you can determine whether it exists or not.....to say we cannot define it but it may exist is just meaningless.

Moreover, according to the argument I make in this post…..anything that does exist is by definition immediately not a god.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Piggy is making the positive claim "Gods don't exist".

All I am saying is "you cannot know this" given humanity's limited perception.

The burden of proof is with piggy to explain how he can know there are no gods. If he knows this, he can tell us what he knows.

All his explanations so far relate only to gods as imagined by humans, not to unknown gods.

And it's a nonsense argument. All Gods are gods described or imagined by humans. You are asserting that God might be 'something else' which is a meaningless claim. A sausage would be 'something else' but it wouldn't be a God.

Your argument boils down to 'You can't say God doesn't exist because I include everything and nothing in my definition of God'

 

[tsig]

I am not presenting a logical argument here, I'm defining god or something equivalent to god.

I am merely speculating that there may be an unknown god exhibiting principles/attributes observable in nature.

Nature is the only artifact or piece of evidence we have. Analysis of nature reveals laws and principles intrinsic to the form that nature takes.

When considering what exists beyond human perception these laws and principles are all we have to work with.

When addressing gods we are considering an entity in which the principle attributes are intelligence and creation.

In observation of nature entities with the attributes of intelligence and creation can be observed.

It is therefore reasonable to consider that said god is consistent with natural law.


* I have already pointed out my reservations regarding the concept of creation as in first cause. A first cause is illogical.

I propose that a god can be a creator in the generally understood definition of creation, ie as an artist creating a painting, an inventor creating a keyboard for example. This form of creation can be observed in nature frequently.

So god is the master of all that can't exist, a spook in the dark that never says anything, a painter without a brush.

 

[tsig]

Piggy is making the positive claim "Gods don't exist".

All I am saying is "you cannot know this" given humanity's limited perception.

The burden of proof is with piggy to explain how he can know there are no gods. If he knows this, he can tell us what he knows.

All his explanations so far relate only to gods as imagined by humans, not to unknown gods.

What good is an unknown god? He might as well not exist.

 

[laca]

punshhh will never ever understand what you guys are saying, but nice posts.

 

[punshhh]

So god is the master of all that can't exist, a spook in the dark that never says anything, a painter without a brush.

You are in his painting along with everything humanity knows to exist.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, since we aren't going to change each other's mind.

`

That's not a very productive way of approaching a debate, Catty.

I think the definitions of opinion in my previous post show that my use is legit. And all those opinions in your examples have the same weight. If the expert is pronouncing as an expert on the subject at hand, it's not an opinion, it's a statement of positive knowledge. If it's an opinion on a subject outside his field, the expert's opinion has the same worth as the ignoramus's and the lay-person's opinions.

Ok I'm done playing word games with you.

I disagree. Those are opinions, unsubstantiated, subjective beliefs.

Your preference for blue is a belief ? That's just plain weird.

One theory replaced the other because new evidence indicated that it was more valid or probable. That doesn't mean that the old theory was just opinion. It was knowledge based on the methods of gathering evidence available at the time and on the evidence so gathered. So, no, I'm not "just playing semantics."

Actually, so yes, you're playing semantics.

So I think your argument is:
Premise 1: There is no evidence for the existence of god.
Premise 2: Therefore, provisionally, there is no god pending further evidence
Premise 3: There is evidence against the existence of god
Conclusion: There is no god.

Have I understood you correctly? If so, Premise 2 is invalid. You're saying that there is no evidence for p, therefore not-p. This is an argument from ignorance, and is a fallacy. A more correct premise would be:

Premise 2: Therefore, we don't know whether or not there is a god pending further evidence.

Only if we like ideological nonsense. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence where evidence of presence would be expected, which is the case here. It's therefore not a fallacy and I'm not surprised you don't know the difference. Your own premise 2 is precisely the same as mine. It's just worded to fit your own point of view, which is not very pragmatic.

With the change in Premise 2, I think it becomes a logically valid argument.

Then you have no idea what "logically valid" means.

If you want me to accept the conclusion, however, I would need to see and accept the evidence you mention in Premise 3.

Which god, specifically, would you want me to disprove ?

 

[punshhh]

Punshhh,

What you are saying is not quite right.

If you and I are in a room and I make a statement that there is no XXXX in the room then the statement is either correct or not.

But since XXXX does not mean anything then you cannot LOGICALLY decide whether my statement is incorrect or not.

There is no way that you can LOGICALLY decide unless you have a CONCRETE definition for what XXXX is.

Yes, however I have defined X and the definition is derived from an emergent property of nature. Now we could debate the definition, but I have only pointed it out as an example of a hypothetical god that piggy has not addressed. One for which he is not in a position to claim doesn't exist.

NOW.....the argument you are making is that there may be something in the universe that we cannot define and do not know.

That means NOTHING..... it is a meaningless statement.

I have to take issue with this, it is not meaningless unless one regards humanity as in some way wise to what exists. This requires putting the human intellect on a pedestal as I remarked in my first post in this thread. Humanity if it is to be realistic must consider that the majority of existence may be very different to the little portion we are aware of and we may be mistaken or deluded.

The moment you say "unknown gods" you have in effect defined what it is.....it is a NOT-god.

Yes were back to the definition.

And you have already agreed with Piggy that there is no god according to any definition humans have.

Thus as far as God is concerned you agree that there is none.

Hold your horses I have not agreed to this, only the mythological gods as they are described. I have suggested a god beyond human perception for piggy to deny the existence of.

Moreover, according to the argument I make in this post…..anything that does exist is by definition immediately not a god.

Thanks for the link, I missed that bit of discussion.

You do realise by introducing the hyperverse and infinity you are stepping up a gear or two. We will have to keep it separate to the discussion at hand so as not to derail it.

 

[dafydd]

punshhh will never ever understand what you guys are saying.

Too true.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

You would have a point if God were something we would not expect to have any normal experience of at all.

But God has never been that. Just ask the folks who have faith in Him.

Suppose some folks have it wrong? What if god(s) were something we would not expect to have any normal experience of at all? Or that we haven't yet found how to interpret correctly?

It's more like this:

I've looked everwhere in this room and haven't detected any live elephants.
A live elephant is too big to be hidden anywhere in this room.
Therefore, there are no live elephants in this room.

So, your argument is that we have no evidence of god(s) and that god(s) are impossible? Why are they impossible? Why would you need step one (the absence of evidence) if you have step two (they are impossible)? Shouldn't the second step suffice?

Isn't it more like this? There are no green pixies in this room. I've looked everywhere at the appropriate level (macroscopic) and there is no evidence of any green pixies. And green pixies don't exist because they are an invention of humans.

That works for certain conceptions of god(s), but does it work for all?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

So I think your argument is:
Premise 1: There is no evidence for the existence of god.
Premise 2: Therefore, provisionally, there is no god pending further evidence
Premise 3: There is evidence against the existence of god
Conclusion: There is no god.

Have I understood you correctly? If so, Premise 2 is invalid. You're saying that there is no evidence for p, therefore not-p. This is an argument from ignorance, and is a fallacy. A more correct premise would be:

Premise 2: Therefore, we don't know whether or not there is a god pending further evidence.

With the change in Premise 2, I think it becomes a logically valid argument. If you want me to accept the conclusion, however, I would need to see and accept the evidence you mention in Premise 3.



[clip]


Your argument seems to be:

Premise 1: There is no evidence of live elephants in this room.
Premise 2: A live elephant is too big to be hidden in this room.
Conclusion: There are no live elephants in this room.

This, I think, would be a valid argument based on Premise 2. Premise 1 is unnecessary; on it's own it would make the argument invalid as an argument from ignorance.

This is a terminology point.

Deductive arguments are valid if the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises (if the truth of the premises insures the truth of the conclusion; this does not mean that the premises must be true only that if they are true, then the conclusion is true). A deductive argument is invalid if the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. Arguments are sound if the premises are true and the argument structure is valid. We don't generally speak of premises as valid or invalid. Premises are either true or not true.

The first instance you quote above is not a logically valid argument. It is possible for there to be no evidence of god(s) and for there to be evidence against the existence of god(s) and for god(s) to exist. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. Premise two is not invalid. The argument is invalid. Premise 2 is, however, incorrectly stated as you point out; we do not speak of provisional existence but of provisional knowledge. Existence is an either/or issue. Changing premise 2 to a knowledge statement, however, does not make the argument valid.

The second instance (elephants) you interpret correctly as far as I can see. Premise 1 is not necessary for the structure of the argument. The argument is valid because the conclusion follows from premise 2. The argument is also sound because premise 2 is true (assuming a certain size of room).


ETA: Here an interesting one I just thought of where the argument is valid but both premises are false and the conclusion is true:

1. All worms are fantasies.
2. Santa Claus is a worm.
3. Therefore, Santa Claus is a fantasy.

Perfectly valid argument. The conclusion is true. But both premises are false.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

`

Only if we like ideological nonsense. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence where evidence of presence would be expected, which is the case here. It's therefore not a fallacy and I'm not surprised you don't know the difference. Your own premise 2 is precisely the same as mine. It's just worded to fit your own point of view, which is not very pragmatic.

Belz,

I think you've constructed a very strong inductive argument. It simply isn't a deductive argument, or at least not a valid one.

I think you should state it as an inductive argument with the proper conclusion -- that it is highly unlikely that god(s) exist.