Question for believers in a God

[H'ethetheth]

I don't see the problem.

Existence of God is a positive claim. To support it one needs to provide unambiguous evidence. I don't know of such evidence. There is of course a lot of unknown stuff, but even a God in the gaps must be supported with eveidence.

Now I'm not saying that believing in a God is wrong, but I do object to the notion that it is just as rational as not believing in one.

 

[Kimpatsu]

I don't see the problem.

Existence of God is a positive claim. To support it one needs to provide unambiguous evidence. I don't know of such evidence. There is of course a lot of unknown stuff, but even a God in the gaps must be supported with eveidence.

Now I'm not saying that believing in a God is wrong, but I do object to the notion that it is just as rational as not believing in one.

Bravo! My position entirely.

 

[Beleth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But

There you are completely wrong. My house is solidly built on science.

Actually, the only structure which is solidly built on science is the fence between "God exists" and "God does not exist". Only the statement "There is no evidence either way, so no conclusion can be drawn" is scientific.

Many people find sitting on this fence comfortable. I used to, for a while, but I don't any more because obviously God either exists or He does not, and the only answer obviously wrong is that "God may exist".

You use your faith in Occam's Razor to justify your belief that God does not exist, and that's fine. But by jumping off the fence, you are jumping off the only structure solidly built on science. You need to come to terms with that, and I don't think you have yet.

 

[Beleth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But

No, I'm saying it is the MOST LIKELY reason, the same way that evolution is the MOST LIKELY explanation for the existence of complex life forms. You're looking for a certainty that doesn't exist.

So you're saying that quantum computing doesn't prove the MWH. All right then. What's there to disprove?

I've always found the MWH to be the easiest explanation of the consequences of QM to wrap one's head around, once you are convinced that the hidden-variable explanation doesn't work. But there remains a general unpalatibility around it, especially since it leads to one of those infinitely-complex situations which you yourself described in an earlier post as "infinitely unlikely".

Occam's Razor is a principle by which to judge scientific claims (and note: "god exists is a scientific claim), and postulating god immediately falls foul of it. It is incumbent upon you to explain why god HAS to be included in any explanation for the existence of the multiverse, when the simpler, non-supernatural model is not only superior scientifically, it doesn't require this extra, unnecessary tier.

I've never claimed that my explanation is superior scientifically. I'm stating that it is equal scientifically to the god-doesn't-exist claim. And I stand by that statement.

An infinite anthropomorphic deity. What other definition is there?
You're just trying to weasel your way out be redefining "god".

You seem to be under the assumption is that the only definition of God is the one given in the Bible of Yahweh or Jehovah. There are many, many different types of deities, from the small potatoes like Hermes, to the ontological one described by St. Anselm, to the infinitely-infinite one described by Spinoza.

That's why I keep using the word Creator to describe the entity I'm talking about. The only properties knowable about the Creator is that the Creator had the ability to create the universe, and that the Creator did so.

No requirement to be omnipotent, omniscient, or infinite in any form. Just merely big enough to create a universe.

My house isn't flimsy, if you understand how it's built.

Oh, I do. I lived there for quite some time.

Read "The Fabric of Reality" by David Deutch.

Summarize, please.

I understand you fine; you're just wrong.

If the power is neither infinite nor anthropomorphic, it ain't the creator. ("In his image", remember.)

These two statements contradict each other. If you think that my idea of a Creator has anything to do with the Biblical idea of a Creator, or that He created man in His image, then you really, truly don't understand my position.

Or do you think the creator is a space alien from Dimension X?

Could you rephrase that so that it doesn't sound like title of a B-movie from the 50's?

 

[Kimpatsu]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But

Actually, the only structure which is solidly built on science is the fence between "God exists" and "God does not exist". Only the statement "There is no evidence either way, so no conclusion can be drawn" is scientific.

Not true. Mutually contradictory attributes are impossible, so a god that knows there will be a tsunami does not warn people is not a god. A god that causes the tsunami is not a god (of love). A being with neither foreknowledge nor ability to intervene is not a god.

 

[hammegk]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by H'ethetheth

Now I'm not saying that believing in a God is wrong, but I do object to the notion that it is just as rational as not believing in one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bravo! My position entirely.

Was that 1 hand clapping?

Do you have faith in the existence of bosons? Quarks? Is that belief wholly rational, or (for you) anecdotal?

 

[H'ethetheth]

Was that 1 hand clapping?

Do you have faith in the existence of bosons? Quarks? Is that belief wholly rational, or (for you) anecdotal?

Good point. I must say I can only trust that someone can explain to me how bosons are supposed to work, then tell me what I might do to confirm their existence by observation.

However, I do think that knowledge built on science, a somewhat rational web of knowledge, is superior to knowledge built on irrational speculation, intuition or possibly pulled directly from ones rectum.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Was that 1 hand clapping?

I can clap with one hand, against my thigh.

Do you have faith in the existence of bosons? Quarks? Is that belief wholly rational, or (for you) anecdotal?

Bosons and quarks can be demonstrated in particle accelerators. We can infer the existence of the Higgs-Boson particle as the best available theory of QM currently requires it to exist, unlike any gods.

 

[BillyJoe]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But

Beleth,

I've never claimed that my explanation is superior scientifically. I'm stating that it is equal scientifically to the god-doesn't-exist claim. And I stand by that statement.

Is the existence of something really on an equal footing scientifically with its non-existence? My interpretation of the scientific view is that you assume that a particular thing does not exist unless and until there is evidence to the contrary. Do you think that if, after thousands of years of scientific effort, there is still no evidence of the existence of a particular thing, that the existence of that thing is still on an equal footing scientifically with its non-exsitence? Do you think the existence of faeries is on an equal footing scientifically with the non-existence of faeries?

BillyJoe

 

[Beleth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But

Beleth,
Is the existence of something really on an equal footing scientifically with its non-existence?

In the absence of evidence either way, absolutely.

My interpretation of the scientific view is that you assume that a particular thing does not exist unless and until there is evidence to the contrary. Do you think that if, after thousands of years of scientific effort, there is still no evidence of the existence of a particular thing, that the existence of that thing is still on an equal footing scientifically with its non-exsitence?

It all depends on what that thing is. If one of the characteristics of the thing (or of the class of things this particular thing would belong to) is to be unobservable, then yes, you bet they're on equal footing.

Do you think the existence of faeries is on an equal footing scientifically with the non-existence of faeries?

Depends on your definition of faeries. Typically faeries are considered observable, though.

Do you think the existence of life on other planets is on an equal footing scientifically with the non-existence of same? What would you call the scientists like Carl Sagan who believed in the existence of extraterrestrials despite the lack of evidence for them?

 

[Beleth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But

Not true. Mutually contradictory attributes are impossible, so a god that knows there will be a tsunami does not warn people is not a god.

This is a fallacy of the No True Scotsman variety.

A god that causes the tsunami is not a god (of love).

Take those parentheses out and I agree with you 100%.

A being with neither foreknowledge nor ability to intervene is not a god.

Another No True Scotsman fallacy.


It's apparent that your idea of a god and my idea of the Creator are very far apart indeed. I never said the Creator was a god of love, for instance. Please don't shoot your own model down and think that you have refuted my hypothesis in the process.

 

[Riddick]

I don't see the problem.

Existence of God is a positive claim. To support it one needs to provide unambiguous evidence. I don't know of such evidence. There is of course a lot of unknown stuff, but even a God in the gaps must be supported with eveidence.

Now I'm not saying that believing in a God is wrong, but I do object to the notion that it is just as rational as not believing in one.

stating that one is not rational is all that is required to make it true

 

[BillyJoe]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But

Beleth,

In the absence of evidence either way, absolutely.

What about from the point of view of scepticism?

It all depends on what that thing is. If one of the characteristics of the thing (or of the class of things this particular thing would belong to) is to be unobservable, then yes, you bet they're on equal footing.

Perhaps, because science must be able to observe, unobservable things are beyond the scope of science. Or perhaps, from the POV of science, unobservable things are assumed not to exist. At least this is the position I take.

Depends on your definition of faeries. Typically faeries are considered observable, though.

So what is your answer?

Do you think the existence of life on other planets is on an equal footing scientifically with the non-existence of same? What would you call the scientists like Carl Sagan who believed in the existence of extraterrestrials despite the lack of evidence for them?

Extraterrestrials are not impossible from a scientific POV. Calculations can be made to estimate how likely it is that ETs could exist, although these estimates vary tremendously depending on what assumptions are make. I think Carl Sagan held the view that certainly they are possible and that, if they do exist, it would be important/exciting/momentous if contact was ever made. He pursued SETI from this point of view.
(Coincidentally "Contact" is showing tonight onelbourne TV. )
In any case, I don't think the existence of ETs, scientifically, is on the same footing as the existence of God

BillyJoe

 

[Beleth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But

What about from the point of view of scepticism?

I have always taken the stance that a skeptic is one who keeps an open mind and refrains from making a decision or forming an opinion until all the evidence he is aware of has been considered. I realize that this is not the classical Greek definition of Skepticism, which is based more on a doubt-assuming "false until shown to be true" stance.

Science and little-s skepticism are alike in their point of view. Capital-S Skepticism would take the lack of evidence of a Creator and come to the conclusion that no Creator exists.

Perhaps, because science must be able to observe, unobservable things are beyond the scope of science.

Exactly. And opinions regarding such unobservable things, either for or against, are likewise beyond scientific reasoning.

Or perhaps, from the POV of science, unobservable things are assumed not to exist. At least this is the position I take.

That's more of a capital-S Skeptical view and conclusion. In my opinion, it is not the same as the scientific conclusion.

So what is your answer?

I define faeries as "4-6 inch tall humanoids with wings that inhabit Earth", and as such, would be observable. Just as we humans have not catalogued every species of insect which exists, I believe that it is possible, albeit highly unlikely, that faeries exist or had existed at one time.

My gut scoffs at this waffling and says "You bonehead, of course faeries don't exist." But I have learned to not listen to my gut when I am trying to reason things out.

In any case, I don't think the existence of ETs, scientifically, is on the same footing as the existence of God

I don't either. (I don't think anything is on the same footing scientifically as the existence of a Creator.) I was just using them as an example of something that we have been searching for a very long time for and still haven't found, and yet there are still very respected scientists who believe in their existence.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But

This is a fallacy of the No True Scotsman variety.
Another No True Scotsman fallacy.

Wrong; it is an essential attribute of a god the she be omniscient. Any omniscient god that fails to warn of impending disaster is not worthy of worship, and any being that isn't omniscient isn't a god.

It's apparent that your idea of a god and my idea of the Creator are very far apart indeed. I never said the Creator was a god of love, for instance. Please don't shoot your own model down and think that you have refuted my hypothesis in the process.

So, your "creator" is really a giant space alien who came here from Zeta Reticula, and has no supernatural powers at all?

 

[H'ethetheth]

stating that one is not rational is all that is required to make it true

I've read it several times, but I still really don't know what you're saying.

One of which? Belief and disbelief?
What exactly does the stament make true?

Could you shed some more light?


- Beleth:

Originally posted by Beleth

BillyJoe:
Beleth,
Is the existence of something really on an equal footing scientifically with its non-existence?

In the absence of evidence either way, absolutely.

No it's not. The non-existence of God can never be proven, so the burden of proof lies with the positive claim. It is only relevant if there is any evidence FOR the existence of God.
For example, there is no evidence for or against the existence of my invisible and deaf-mute but otherwise identical twin. Should I believe I have such a twin? Is it just as rational as not believing in him?
I can't figure out how one can say that belief based on absense of evidence is just as scientific/rational as disbelief based on absense of evidence.

 

[BillyJoe]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But

Beleth,

I have always taken the stance that a skeptic is one who keeps an open mind and refrains from making a decision or forming an opinion until all the evidence he is aware of has been considered.

I guess that is more or less correct. The problem is that, as I said before, what you do if no evidence is forthcoming. Eventually, I think, you are compelled to take the default position that the thing does not exist. This default position is actually the pragmatic position as well. Why pay any importance to something for which no evidence has been forthcoming after long periods of looking.

I realize that this is not the classical Greek definition of Skepticism, which is based more on a doubt-assuming "false until shown to be true" stance.

I think it is still the appropriate position to take in situations such as the above.

Science and little-s skepticism are alike in their point of view. Capital-S Skepticism would take the lack of evidence of a Creator and come to the conclusion that no Creator exists.

Yes, but still open to considering any new evidence that may become available.

Exactly. And opinions regarding such unobservable things, either for or against, are likewise beyond scientific reasoning.

And perhaps, for that very reason, of no relevance or importance to how we live our lives.
I guess it's a question of whether you give primacy to philosophy/religion or science.

I define faeries as "4-6 inch tall humanoids with wings that inhabit Earth", and as such, would be observable. Just as we humans have not catalogued every species of insect which exists, I believe that it is possible, albeit highly unlikely, that faeries exist or had existed at one time.

Only "highly unlikely"? I would say the possibility is vanishingly small.

My gut scoffs at this waffling and says "You bonehead, of course faeries don't exist." But I have learned to not listen to my gut when I am trying to reason things out.

Fair enough. But, still, I think "vanishingly small" rather than "highly unlikely".

BillyJoe

 

[Beleth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But

So, your "creator" is really a giant space alien who came here from Zeta Reticula, and has no supernatural powers at all?

"Giant": unknowable.
"Space alien": definitely not.
"who came here": definitely not.
"from Zeta Reticula": definitely not.
"has no supernatural powers at all": unknowable.

All that can be reasoned about the Creator is, as I have said, that He had the ability to create the universe, and that He did so.

If your definition of a god requires that it be omni-anything, then no, my view of the Creator does not match your definition of a god.

I suppose you could say that my Creator is "the weakest god possible". The Creator may be more powerful than I have described, but whether He is or not is unknowable.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But

"Giant": unknowable.

Why must giants be unknowable?

"has no supernatural powers at all": unknowable.

Either you beleive in a supernatural creator, or a space alien one. Which is it?

All that can be reasoned about the Creator is, as I have said, that He had the ability to create the universe, and that He did so.

No, she didn't. The watchmaker is blind. And we can reason far more than that from the nature of the "creation" that we see.

If your definition of a god requires that it be omni-anything, then no, my view of the Creator does not match your definition of a god.

So, you're creator isn't supernatural, and that leaves us with the space alien option.

I suppose you could say that my Creator is "the weakest god possible". The Creator may be more powerful than I have described, but whether He is or not is unknowable.

You're pretty certain about what is unknowable, aren't you? You're also wrong; just because something isn't known now doesn't mean it will never be known. Further, the weakest god possible is omnipotent; anything less is a demi-god. And you must still ask the question, "who created the creator?"

 

[Beleth]

Is the existence of something really on an equal footing scientifically with its non-existence?

In the absence of evidence either way, absolutely.

No it's not. The non-existence of God can never be proven, so the burden of proof lies with the positive claim. It is only relevant if there is any evidence FOR the existence of God.

"Scientifically" is the key word in the question BillyJoe asked me. If there is no evidence either way, then the only scientific conclusion is the fence-sitting one. When one jumps off the fence, one leaves the domain of pure science, no matter on which side of the fence one lands.

For example, there is no evidence for or against the existence of my invisible and deaf-mute but otherwise identical twin. Should I believe I have such a twin? Is it just as rational as not believing in him?

On the contrary. There is plenty of evidence that such a twin does not exist. For instance, I assume you have a birth certificate and that no such birth certificate exists for your twin, and I assume that at least one person was conscious in the room you were delivered in - if it was not your mother, then someone else - who has firsthand knowledge that no such twin was born with you.

I can't figure out how one can say that belief based on absense of evidence is just as scientific/rational as disbelief based on absense of evidence.

That's because you are equating "scientific" with "rational". They're not equivalent rationally, but they are equivalent scientifically, and I have never said otherwise.