Doubting your disbelief?

[Gertrude]

Of course. I would never presume to know everything about the universe because of a lack of evidence. What my argument is based around, however, is the ability to gain knowledge. X may exist even if there is no evidence for it, but if there is no evidence for it, what point is there in believing in X?

You are right that if there is no evidence, there is no reason to believe. But you should still have some doubts, especially when it's philosophical matter. That will make you an agnostic at best. Not an atheist. No reason to believe is not the same as a reason to disbelieve. In this sense, the answer to the OPost should be 'yes'.

 

[D'rok]

You are right that if there is no evidence, there is no reason to believe. But you should still have some doubts, especially when it's philosophical matter. That will make you an agnostic at best. Not an atheist. No reason to believe is not the same as a reason to disbelieve. In this sense, the answer to the OPost should be 'yes'.

In my view, it boils down to reasonable doubt. There is no reasonable reason for me to doubt my disbelief, therefore I do not doubt it. I still have to allow the possibility that my beliefs could be wrong, but this is not the same thing as doubt or agnosticism; it is simply an intrinsic part of an evidence-based belief system.

A god that cannot be perceived, described or observed in any way is functionally equivalent to one that does not exist. I would have a reasonable doubt about my disbelief if I thought there was even a possibility that evidence of god could be forthcoming. Philosophical arguments are not evidence.

 

[Gertrude]

Dustin, how much time do you spend reading one post before you answer? I get the impression that you don't really get what I'm saying. Now I could be unclear so I'll reiterate one last time.

Why?

Being that "gives rise to" is hardly a definition of 'originator'. It is at best a methaphor. You're a smart guy, how can you not see that?

I really fail to see any logical problems with God creating something from nothing. If he made the laws that define "Something" and "Nothing" I see no reason why he can't manipulate them.

No. YOU define something and nothing as means to think. Nothingness is a human grammatical invention quite useful in our everyday life. The logical problem is not god nor is it 'something'. It is the 'out of nothing' part. Instead of saying that you don't see any problems, why don't you address exactly my arguments?

Furthermore, Perhaps "God" has always existed or perhaps he was created by a previous God who has since died out.

Sure. But that brings us nowhere and you still haven't addressed the question of creation.

So Evolution isn't a 'fact'? Heliocentricity isn't a fact?

They are facts. But science does not producethem. They were already there before science. Science merely predicts and describes these facts.

That's the only thing you don't doubt? Let's say you're just a "thinking being" and just that? Nothing else exists as far as you know outside of your own experiences. Now please tell me the origin of your experiences. Do they come from outside of your consciousness or inside of it? If your experiences come from inside of your head then what caused them to occur? Obviously they occur unconsciously since we can't actually choose what we see. If I see a hammer I can't will myself into actually seeing a Hamburger. It's still a hammer no matter how hard I try to convince myself otherwise. Since this is the case, Where do your experiences come from? Inside or outside of your own consciousness? If inside then again, what's the cause of your chain of experiences?

There are many things that I am quite certain are true. But there is always a small doubt on the philosophical level. A small doubt, as infintesimally small as it is prevents me from claiming that X is true. X is probably true, but I won't say it is true. Your question assumes that I completely reject all other existence. And I don't. I think there is far more chance that all these experiences are real. But it is not a certainty! It cannot be!

The definition of "Belief" is '[SIZE=-1]any cognitive content held as true'. This means that if I have cognition that something is factual then that would be a belief. If I have cognition that something is not factual then that's a belief as well since I have cognition that it's true that it's not factual. The definition of "belief" is not meaningless.

You are deliberately missing the point. You cannot hold a belief that has no subject and meaningfully hold it true. A belief has a subject. It is a belief in something.

"I believe" is not meaningful.
"I believe X is true." is meaningful if X is well defined.

Let't reiterate once more. By definition, god is a creator. Creation, by definition, implies creating something out of nothing. (If there already was something, creation has already occured.) But nothingness is only defined with respect to 'something'. It is a vicious circle. You try do distinguish and oppose nothingness to being when one of the two concepts needs the other. Nothingness is the absence of what we know. But objectively it is still something, hence defeats the question of creation. The word 'creation' holds many assumptions, idées reçues and logical fallacies. Before you use it, make sure you address them.

My position is that since we don't have a meaningful question, there can be no answer. "Do you believe in god" is not meaningful because god is ill defined. It is defined in terms of creator. But creation is itself meaningless in a purely rational sense (which is all we got!). To the question "do you belive in god", I answer: "green." And live my life as an atheist.

 

[Gertrude]

In my view, it boils down to reasonable doubt. There is no reasonable reason for me to doubt my disbelief, therefore I do not doubt it. I still have to allow the possibility that my beliefs could be wrong, but this is not the same thing as doubt or agnosticism; it is simply an intrinsic part of an evidence-based belief system.

I see you point. But I disagree on a fundamental level. My default position is doubt. If there is enough evidence to support the existence of X, I'll admit that X is most likely to exist. But if there is no evidence at all one way or the other, I'll say that I don't know. Now I agree with you that what we observe form the world tends to discredit the idea of a protective god, or transcendant being (note that I did not touch the subject of creation in the definition). In this sense, I would tend to say that no god is more likely. But that does not make me an atheist. It makes me an agnostic. See my system as a line. Negative infinity being "It is not true". Zero being "I don't know" and positive infinity being "It is true". Infinity is not reachable. No matter the evidence, there always remains a small doubt. This is especially true when talking of god.

A god that cannot be perceived, described or observed in any way is functionally equivalent to one that does not exist.

For you and me. But do you trust the human machine so blindly as to say that what we experience is all there is? After all, the way we experience was merely designed for our survival!

I would have a reasonable doubt about my disbelief if I thought there was even a possibility that evidence of god could be forthcoming. Philosophical arguments are not evidence.

You are right. But then there is a problem defining what kind of evidence would work because god itself is not a well defined concept.

 

[PixyMisa]

You're mixing up the concepts of validity and soundness. The conclusions of Dustin's arguments with false premises are perfectly valid. They are, however, unsound. Validity is formal only; soundness reflects truth/untruth.

Sorry. Yes, messed up the terminology there.

ETA: That's why I tried to write things like " If the premise is false, or the argument is invalid, then any conclusion you might reach is worthless." I fuzzed out on the valid vs. sound thing, 'cause it's been a while. Then I messed up and used "invalid" in the wrong place.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

No. Everything which is explainable is naturalistically explainable. This is not a tautology.

This is the no Scotsman fallacy. If you're assuming that nothing can be explained using non-naturalistic means then you're forced to come to the conclusion that all things which currently can be explained (using naturalistic philosophy) must be explained using naturalistic philosophy.

Random events do not necessarily break natural laws. I said "If there was something which breaks natural laws, and cannot be explained using naturalistic science, then it would prove the existance of God". It needn't be a random event. A real miracle, for example, would satisfy this definition.

Why would it prove the existence of a God? Why not some other powerful being who can break the laws of nature but who isn't God? Why not some non-conscious event that breaks them but isn't God? I don't see how the laws of nature breaking down would necessarily prove a God.

What basis could you have for believing in something without evidence? If you can believe in one thing without evidence, there is no reason to not believe in all other possible things.

Pragmatism?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

The conclusion can be true by coincidence. It is not a valid conclusion; it just happens to be true.

That's right.

Right.

Ok.

A valid argument based on true premises proves its conclusion. The argument is not evidence; the argument is merely a logical connection between the premises and the conclusion. The premises are evidence; the conclusion may also be evidence. Arguments by themselves are evidence of nothing at all.

But they are proof of things. For instance assuming the true premise it's proof I'm petting a Dog.

Premise -> Argument -> Conclusion

Premise->Premise->Conclusion
(Categorical syllogism)

The reason I keep coming back to this is that this is very common flaw in apologetics, Christian or otherwise. Even if the argument is airtight (unlikely), if it is not founded on an empirically observable premise, the conclusion has no empirical value.

This is true.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

It is an axiom, though. It's not something provable or observable... Though inductively it certainly seems to be correct.

Dustin, the reason Taffer is saying that "What caused the Big Bang?" is a meaningless question goes directly to the fundamental underpinnings of science. Science is an exercise in explaining the universe in terms of the universe. To do so, certain assumptions must be made: That the universe is causally closed, or to put it another way, that the universe is what is; and that the universe follows a single, consistent set of rules.

Now, those are assumptions; they could be wrong. On a purely metaphysical basis, they are no more supportable than any others. On a practical basis, though, they are in a completely different class to any other philosophy ever devised. Science works.

Right. This is called pragmatism.

But since science is an explanation of a causally closed universe in terms of itself, it must logically exclude anything outside the universe, outside in terms of either space or time. So "What caused the Big Bang?" is not a meaningful scientific question... Or, if one day we discover an answer, it will mean that what we presently think of as the universe was not causally closed after all, and we will have discovered a larger universe that encloses our universe and is in turn causally closed, so the problem will merely have been push up a level.

Physicists don't assume that the universe is casually closed or else they wouldn't have any motivation to find out otherwise. The driving force behind science is innovation and discovery and if we assume a specific premise then we have no motivation for seeing otherwise.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Dustin, how much time do you spend reading one post before you answer? I get the impression that you don't really get what I'm saying. Now I could be unclear so I'll reiterate one last time.

That's a possibility.

Being that "gives rise to" is hardly a definition of 'originator'. It is at best a methaphor. You're a smart guy, how can you not see that?

I'm working with the definitions I get from Webster and it defines "Originator" as a "Giving rise to".
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Originator

No. YOU define something and nothing as means to think. Nothingness is a human grammatical invention quite useful in our everyday life. The logical problem is not god nor is it 'something'. It is the 'out of nothing' part. Instead of saying that you don't see any problems, why don't you address exactly my arguments?

I don't know what you're arguing.

Either way, nothingness is a concept that has no meaning outside of our everyday use of the word: there is a book, there is no book.

I have no idea what you mean by "has no meaning outside of our everyday use of the word".

To stretch a concept that inherently depends on existence to the origin of all existence is not justified imho.

What do you mean?

In this sense, it is not meaningful to talk about 'creation' since the word itself implies going from nothing to something (nothing not being a valid concept without existence).

I don't know what you mean by "nothing not being a valid concept without existence". Why is 'nothing' not a valid concept without existence? Nothing simply means 'not any thing' i.e. lacking all things.

Furthermore, you haven't addressed the existence of god. We have to admit that god indeed is something. Hence the existence of god already implies that creation has happened. The whole series of thoughts is completely absurd!

Perhaps "God" has always existed or perhaps he was created by a previous God who has since died out.

Sure. But that brings us nowhere and you still haven't addressed the question of creation.

What question of creation? There would be no need for an "initial creation" if Gods were creating other gods in an infinite series.

They are facts. But science does not produce them. They were already there before science. Science merely predicts and describes these facts.

That's true. Science also reveals them as facts to us. They were always 'facts' however we didn't know they were facts until science revealed such to us.

There are many things that I am quite certain are true. But there is always a small doubt on the philosophical level. A small doubt, as infintesimally small as it is prevents me from claiming that X is true. X is probably true, but I won't say it is true. Your question assumes that I completely reject all other existence. And I don't. I think there is far more chance that all these experiences are real. But it is not a certainty! It cannot be!

I'm saying that we can deduce from "Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum" a bit more than simply our own existence.

You are deliberately missing the point. You cannot hold a belief that has no subject and meaningfully hold it true. A belief has a subject. It is a belief in something.

Or a belief 'about' something.

"I believe" is not meaningful.
"I believe X is true." is meaningful if X is well defined.

Well I could say "I believe..." as a general sense simply stating the fact that I do hold beliefs without specifically stating them.

Let't reiterate once more. By definition, god is a creator.

Well "God" is. "god" without a capital "G" isn't necessarily a creator.

Creation, by definition, implies creating something out of nothing. (If there already was something, creation has already occured.)

Nope. If this were true "Creation" wouldn't be possible by anyone since we can't create things out of nothing.

Create can be defined as...

Create-to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.

Create-to evolve from one's own thought or imagination, as a work of art or an invention.

Create-to cause to happen; bring about; arrange, as by intention or design.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Create

But nothingness is only defined with respect to 'something'. It is a vicious circle. You try do distinguish and oppose nothingness to being when one of the two concepts needs the other. Nothingness is the absence of what we know. But objectively it is still something, hence defeats the question of creation. The word 'creation' holds many assumptions, idées reçues and logical fallacies. Before you use it, make sure you address them.

Explain how "nothingness is only defined with respect to something".

My position is that since we don't have a meaningful question, there can be no answer. "Do you believe in god" is not meaningful because god is ill defined.

I defined it just fine..

It is defined in terms of creator. But creation is itself meaningless in a purely rational sense (which is all we got!). To the question "do you belive in god", I answer: "green." And live my life as an atheist.

Except "God" can be defined in a meaningful way. "Creation" can be defined in a meaningful way. And "Do you believe in God?" Can be answered by "Yes" or "No".

 

[Gertrude]

Ok Dustin. I realise that I may not have been as clear as I thought. So I'll try my best to explain what I think.

First, I cannot conceive god to be defined as something other than a creator. This is the definition used by (almost?) all religions. Sure you can define god as a 'transcendant being' without mentioning creation. But that is equivalent to asking "do you believe in angels?" , "do you believe in the supernatural" or "do you believe in another reality". While the question may remain valid, it does not completely encompass our cultural notion of god. And if we simply define god as the 'ruler', then how can we differentiate him from the physical laws that govern our universe? By introducing 'will' or consciousness? Maybe... And a god defined in this way can make for a very interesting discussion: determinism. But it is a very different question. I believe that when using the word 'god' in our culture, we always have 'creator' as a synonym in the back of our minds.

But what is creation? Creation is about the origin of what we know: our universe and the laws governing it. 'Creation' implies that at some point, something came out of nothing. If something already and forever existed, then there is no creation to talk about and our definition of god vanishes. Let's analyse the other possibility: something did come out of nothing. In this statement lies an important opposition between the concepts of being and nothingness. The two concepts must therefore be completely independant to really be opposite to each other. But are they?

Nothingness is a useful concept in our everyday lives. "I saw nobody". "I had nothing to say". "There was no blue car." In all cases, they are defined as being the absence of something existing: a person, words and a blue car. To define nothingness, we must have a knowledge of something that is absent. If no such knowledge exists, then the nothingness has no meaning. There are infinitely many things that don't exist and that nobody will ever imagine. Their absence will also never be defined. To have 'nothingness', you must have 'something'. The opposition of the two concepts is not valid because one needs the other. Existence is a positive quality while absence is completely negative and is only defined w.r.t existence.

The question of creation is in this sense pointless imho. The concepts that are intuitively valid to us vanish when we really question them. It is with this in mind that I claim : 'creation' is ill defined. By extension, god is also an ill defined concept. Asking: "does god exist" is not a valid question. And a meaningless question leads to a meaningless answer. I am not an atheist, nor an agnostic. At best I am nontheist. I simply choose to discard the question.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Ok Dustin. I realise that I may not have been as clear as I thought. So I'll try my best to explain what I think.

Awesome.

First, I cannot conceive god to be defined as something other than a creator.

Argument from incredulity.

god-(lowercase

) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
god-(lowercase

) an image of a deity; an idol.
god-(lowercase

) any deified person or object.
God-A very handsome man.
God-A powerful ruler or despot.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/God

This is the definition used by (almost?) all religions.

Generally monotheistic religions. Polytheistic religions have Gods and Goddesses which exist but didn't make the universe.

Sure you can define god as a 'transcendant being' without mentioning creation. But that is equivalent to asking "do you believe in angels?" , "do you believe in the supernatural" or "do you believe in another reality". While the question may remain valid, it does not completely encompass our cultural notion of god. And if we simply define god as the 'ruler', then how can we differentiate him from the physical laws that govern our universe?

By making it clear that he is a conscious "Being"

By introducing 'will' or consciousness? Maybe... And a god defined in this way can make for a very interesting discussion: determinism. But it is a very different question. I believe that when using the word 'god' in our culture, we always have 'creator' as a synonym in the back of our minds.

This is true.

But what is creation? Creation is about the origin of what we know: our universe and the laws governing it. 'Creation' implies that at some point, something came out of nothing. If something already and forever existed, then there is no creation to talk about and our definition of god vanishes.

This isn't necessarily true. As I explained earlier "Creation" doesn't necessarily mean "something out of nothing" but simply "something novel" which can be created by adding aspects of what already exists to make something new.

Let's analyse the other possibility: something did come out of nothing. In this statement lies an important opposition between the concepts of being and nothingness. The two concepts must therefore be completely independant to really be opposite to each other. But are they?

Not sure what you mean by being independent to be opposite of eachother.

Nothingness is a useful concept in our everyday lives. "I saw nobody". "I had nothing to say". "There was no blue car." In all cases, they are defined as being the absence of something existing: a person, words and a blue car. To define nothingness, we must have a knowledge of something that is absent.

To "define" nothingness we must. However if nothing exist there's no one there to define it. You're trying to place human limitations on distinctly non-human events and phenomena.

If no such knowledge exists, then the nothingness has no meaning. There are infinitely many things that don't exist and that nobody will ever imagine. Their absence will also never be defined. To have 'nothingness', you must have 'something'. The opposition of the two concepts is not valid because one needs the other. Existence is a positive quality while absence is completely negative and is only defined w.r.t existence.

Again, You're relying on human limitations of defining "nothingness" in relation to something. 1 billion years ago there were "no computers". 13 billion years ago there were "No planets or galaxies". They didn't exist regardless of anyones defining their absence in relation to their existing.

The question of creation is in this sense pointless imho. The concepts that are intuitively valid to us vanish when we really question them. It is with this in mind that I claim : 'creation' is ill defined. By extension, god is also an ill defined concept. Asking: "does god exist" is not a valid question. And a meaningless question leads to a meaningless answer. I am not an atheist, nor an agnostic. At best I am nontheist. I simply choose to discard the question.

The question of God isn't meaningless or worthless and is very valid and can be adequately defined. Also, If you do not believe in a God then you are an "Atheist" by definition. There are two possibilities:

Belief. (Theism)
Disbelief. (Atheism, whether strong or weak)

 

[PixyMisa]

Premise->Premise->Conclusion
(Categorical syllogism)

You've missed the forest for the trees. The argument of such a syllogism is implicit, rather than explicit.

What you are saying with the syllogism is (P1 and P2) implies Q. If that argument is valid, and you assert P1 and P2, you are asserting Q. If in addition P1 and P2 are in fact true, then the conclusion Q is valid and sound.

But the argument (P1 and P2) implies Q by itself tells us nothing.

 

[PixyMisa]

Right. This is called pragmatism.

That's one term for it. Empiricism is a much better one.

Physicists don't assume that the universe is casually closed or else they wouldn't have any motivation to find out otherwise. The driving force behind science is innovation and discovery and if we assume a specific premise then we have no motivation for seeing otherwise.

Sorry, you're dead wrong here. Science must assume that the universe is causally closed; it can't work otherwise.

The universe is all that can be observed (by definition). Science is the attempt to explain the universe in terms of itself. If it's not causally closed, you can't do that. There would be things that can't be observed affecting things that can. And remember, we include in what can be observed, that which is observed by its effects on other stuff.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That's one term for it. Empiricism is a much better one.

Wrong. Pragmatism is basically using what "works" and empiricism 'emphasizes aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to experience, especially as formed through deliberate experimental arrangements.'

Sorry, you're dead wrong here. Science must assume that the universe is causally closed; it can't work otherwise.

Why?

Science is the attempt to explain the universe in terms of itself.

Says who?

If it's not causally closed, you can't do that.

Except that's not what 'science' is. Science is the method used to explain the universe period. In any way that the facts support.

There would be things that can't be observed affecting things that can. And remember, we include in what can be observed, that which is observed by its effects on other stuff.

There might be things that can't be observed affecting things that can be. Take a glance at quantum physics and you'll see what I mean.

 

[Gertrude]

Argument from incredulity.

Right. That didn't come out right, eh! Please erase that phrase and let the rest of the argument do its job...

Generally monotheistic religions. Polytheistic religions have Gods and Goddesses which exist but didn't make the universe.

Yes. And in the context of our discussion, it is clear that it is the former case, right? We otherwise come back to a god-'ruler' which, as I said, is another debate.

This isn't necessarily true. As I explained earlier "Creation" doesn't necessarily mean "something out of nothing" but simply "something novel" which can be created by adding aspects of what already exists to make something new.

Creating "something novel" out of what already exist is not creation! What you are describing is a 'ruler', not a creator. A being who consciously organises matter, ie. create something novel out of what is already there, is not a creator. And, again, a god-'ruler' is another matter: determinism. If there already is something before that god re-organises everything, then we have not addressed the question of creation.

Not sure what you mean by being independent to be opposite of eachother.

If you say there is nothing, what you really are saying is: there is no [insert object that you have knowledge of]. To have nothing, you must have something in the first place... because nothing is the very absence of that something. Imho you cannot stretch that concept back to the very origin of all existence. The word, I think, is only useful in our day to day wordings.

To "define" nothingness we must. However if nothing exist there's no one there to define it. You're trying to place human limitations on distinctly non-human events and phenomena.

When saying: "if nothing exist", you use a very human concept to make a point that it cannot be humanly defined. Is that not a contradiction?

Again, You're relying on human limitations of defining "nothingness" in relation to something. 1 billion years ago there were "no computers". 13 billion years ago there were "No planets or galaxies". They didn't exist regardless of anyones defining their absence in relation to their existing.

You can say that in retrospection because you now have knowledge of these objects. Again, you show that 'nothing' is only valid when 'something' exists. Furthermore, I must point out that the material needed to create these object existed. In a way, they did exist, but as raw material. The comparison is not valid when extented to creation.

The question of God isn't meaningless or worthless and is very valid and can be adequately defined. Also, If you do not believe in a God then you are an "Atheist" by definition. There are two possibilities:

Belief. (Theism)
Disbelief. (Atheism, whether strong or weak)

Oh. I'm very sorry. I was talking about the stronger atheism: the belief that god does not exist. I never define myself as an atheist precisely because atheism = god does not exist for many people. I should definately have been clearer. (And sorry for all parts of my writings that sometimes don't make sense: english is not my first language and things sometimes come out weird!)

 

[PixyMisa]

Wrong. Pragmatism is basically using what "works" and empiricism 'emphasizes aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to experience, especially as formed through deliberate experimental arrangements.'

Science works because empiricism is the only valid method for understanding the universe. We like science because it works; that is pragmatism.

Why?

I just explained that, Dustin.

Science is inductive. If the universe is not causally closed, inductive reasoning fails.

Says who?

Me.

Except that's not what 'science' is. Science is the method used to explain the universe period. In any way that the facts support.

No, absolutely not. Science uses observation and induction. That only works if you have a causally closed universe that follows a consistent set of rules.

If you make those assumptions, you find that they work very well indeed; in fact, we have never yet seen them fail, though they have led us in unexpected directions.

There might be things that can't be observed affecting things that can be. Take a glance at quantum physics and you'll see what I mean.

Actually study QM and you'll find that you are wrong. Particularly once you grasp the meaning of the term "observe" in science.

If there are things that truly cannot be observed affecting things that can be, then the universe is not causally closed, induction fails, and science doesn't work. Since we know that science does work, this would appear not to be the case.

 

[PixyMisa]

Indeed, there is no way to distinguish between a universe that is not causally closed and a universe that doesn't follow a consistent set of rules. But either way, inductive logic, and hence science, fail.

 

[Taffer]

You are right that if there is no evidence, there is no reason to believe. But you should still have some doubts, especially when it's philosophical matter. That will make you an agnostic at best. Not an atheist.

Atheism relates specifically to the concepts of god. I am a 'weak atheist', that is "I do not have a belief in God", rather then a 'strong atheist', "I have a belief in no God". The difference is subtle and important.

Agnosticms deals with the ability to gain knowledge. Depending on your definition of "God", I am either a 'strong agnostic', that is "It is impossible to have knowledge about God", or a 'weak agnostic', which is "We do not have knowledge of the existance of God".

As an aside, my epistemic philosophy is what I like to call "complete epistemic skepticism". It boils down to "it is impossible to have certain a posteriori knowledge about anything, including this statement". The beauty is that science does not claim to give certain knowledge, only reasonable knowledge or "practical knowledge".

No reason to believe is not the same as a reason to disbelieve. In this sense, the answer to the OPost should be 'yes'.

And I don't disbelieve, I lack a belief. This is not a belief into itself. The answer to the OP is "no", because I have never seen any evidence to doubt my lack of belief. If there is evidence, I will doubt my lack of belief (by forming a null hypothesis), and then test the evidence against this hypothesis. So far, there is no evidence at all, so my lack of belief is safe.

 

[Taffer]

This is the no Scotsman fallacy. If you're assuming that nothing can be explained using non-naturalistic means then you're forced to come to the conclusion that all things which currently can be explained (using naturalistic philosophy) must be explained using naturalistic philosophy.

No, Dustin. There is no "before" the Big Bang. The question is meaningless.

Why would it prove the existence of a God? Why not some other powerful being who can break the laws of nature but who isn't God? Why not some non-conscious event that breaks them but isn't God? I don't see how the laws of nature breaking down would necessarily prove a God.

I know you don't. What would convince you of the existance of God?

Pragmatism?

You choose which things to believe in based on the consequences of such a belief being true?

 

[andyandy]

That's one term for it. Empiricism is a much better one.


Sorry, you're dead wrong here. Science must assume that the universe is causally closed; it can't work otherwise.

The universe is all that can be observed (by definition). Science is the attempt to explain the universe in terms of itself. If it's not causally closed, you can't do that. There would be things that can't be observed affecting things that can. And remember, we include in what can be observed, that which is observed by its effects on other stuff.

We are limited by dint of light speed by that which we can observe in the universe - ie the "observable universe." This is not all there is - nor is it fixed [it is currently growing larger as light from further galaxies finally reaches us - it may start shrinking in the distant future].

So surely the universe is all that is and not all that which can be observed?