What We Believe But Cannot Prove

[Malerin]

I did.

But you're right, more rational is what I should have said.

You're better off with "more likely". Neither theism nor atheism is irrational. Hell, solipsism, brain-in-a-vat-ism, the theory that we exist in a computer simulation, etc. are all rational theories. They all could be true.

Atheism and theism are simply competing theories. Your best bet is to show, by a Bayesian calculus, that atheism is confirmed to a higher degree than all other competing theories by the available evidence. I don't think you'll be able to do that.

 

[Beth]

You're better off with "more likely". Neither theism nor atheism is irrational. Hell, solipsism, brain-in-a-vat-ism, the theory that we exist in a computer simulation, etc. are all rational theories. They all could be true.

Atheism and theism are simply competing theories. Your best bet is to show, by a Bayesian calculus, that atheism is confirmed to a higher degree than all other competing theories by the available evidence. I don't think you'll be able to do that.

Actually, it's not that hard to do. Of course, it's equally easy to construct a Bayesian analysis showing the same for theism. All you have to do is accept appropriate prior probabilities to end up with your desired conclusion.

Coming to consensus on what those prior probabilities 'ought' be is an issue though. They are subjective value judgments. Which is, of course, the same problem that been discussed in a slightly different guise.

 

[PixyMisa]

Except that we know that religions are invented and altered by humans for subjective reasons. We know that they can't all be true. We know that many of them are not internally consistent or even coherent. These are not subjective value judgements. These are facts.

 

[Pixel42]

A theist could easily say there is a biochemical and theistic foundation for spiritual experience. They are not mutually exclusive.

True, but the former makes the latter unnecessary.

You arbitrarily favor materialism over immaterialism without any evidence for the former.

Given the choice between

1. an explanation which fully explains a phenomenon without neeeding to postulate an entity for which there is no physical evidence, and

2. an explanation which offers no extra explanatory power but which does require such an entity

I favour (1), yes. That is not an arbitrary choice because (1) is the most parsimonious, and therefore the most rational, explanation.

For example, I do not believe that volcanic eruptions are caused by volcano gods but by hot magma being forced up from deep below the earth's surface by purely physical processes. You could point out that this and the volcano god explanation are not mutually exclusive because those physical processes could be the way the volcano god expresses his displeasure, and you would be right. But I do not consider that possibility sufficiently likely for it to be worth continuing to sacrifice the odd virgin to keep him sweet.

 

[Prometheus]

I was referring to the last line of 3point14's quote:

Ah, then perhaps you should have bolded that line rather than the other.

Besides, religious people don't "just make stuff up". They have evidence (their subjective experience) and a theory that explains the evidence (theism).

Sure, except that their 'evidence' isn't, and their 'theory' doesn't.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.....
3) You're claiming there is no evidence for god. Again, this reveals an assumption on your part: that reality is materialistic. If reality is a projection of God's mind (Berkeley's idealism), then there is copius amounts of evidence for god. Literally all sensory input is evidence. You arbitrarily favor materialism over immaterialism without any evidence for the former. ....

Your straw man is highlighted in this quote. It's not arbitrary. As I said and as you are in denial about and cannot see, the scientific evidence based world view is very successful, whereas the superstitious 'faith based' world view is not. That is not arbitrary, unless you think a goal of success is arbitrary.

..... 3) You're claiming there is no evidence for god. Again, this reveals an assumption on your part: that reality is materialistic. If reality is a projection of God's mind (Berkeley's idealism), then there is copius amounts of evidence for god. Literally all sensory input is evidence. You arbitrarily favor materialism over immaterialism without any evidence for the former. ....

Your false claim is highlighted here. Even if you want to create this fantasy 'Matrix' scenario, why would god beliefs necessarily be evidence of anything anymore than Harry Potter beliefs are evidence of a real Hogwarts? Once again, you yourself arbitrarily pick the things you want to believe, and you fail to distinguish your god beliefs/conclusions from fiction. What makes god beliefs any less fictional than Harry Potter beliefs?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

A single bit?

Only one person in history has reported feeling god's presence? Did you mean singular type?

So now reality is determined by majority vote? Does that mean the Earth was originally flat until the majority view changed?


I prefer successful evidence based reality. The number of people who believe they have god experiences (which BTW, I don't believe, I think people claim they have 'felt' god only because they think other people expect them to say so, but I digress), still amounts to a fraction of the evidence. The rest of the evidence you conveniently leave out is the overwhelming evidence that gods are fictional beings people invented.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You're better off with "more likely". Neither theism nor atheism is irrational. ....

Apparently you operate under a different definition of irrational than the skeptical community. Care to give an example of true irrational thinking so we can compare that to what you claim is rational theism?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Again, a claim there is no evidence for god based on a starting assumption that there is no god and reality is materialistic. Of course you won't find evidence for god with this kind of circular rasoning. But don't complain when theists assume, from the start, there is a god and their experiences confirm their beliefs.

Rubbish! The only tools we have are our senses and logic. The ultimate application of these tools is science and the scientific method. Having established that, we can conclude with absolute certainty that there is no scientific evidence, no experiment or observation that has demonstrated the existence of deities. So, without a single shred of evidence for the existence of deities, we can conclude that there are no deities -- or for that matter -- the tooth fairy.

 

[AlBell]

Except that we know that religions are invented and altered by humans for subjective reasons. We know that they can't all be true. We know that many of them are not internally consistent or even coherent. These are not subjective value judgements. These are facts.

Mans' attempts to date to define god are unsound, but do not prove the non-existence of god.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Mans' attempts to date to define god are unsound, but do not prove the non-existence of god.

It's a good thing the definition is not the issue.

 

[PixyMisa]

Mans' attempts to date to define god are unsound, but do not prove the non-existence of god.

If you can't even define something, it's certainly irrational to claim it exists.

 

[punshhh]

If you can't even define something, it's certainly irrational to claim it exists.

What is energy Pixy?

 

[punshhh]

It's a good thing the definition is not the issue.

Defining God has become problematic due to the activity of religion.

The original definition, or meaning, is fairly easy to tease out of the confusion.

God is the word used to refer to the collection or set of;

1, The unknown basis of existence(as we know and experience it).

2, The impact of natural forces on this existence from day to day.

The second set is where the problems arise, as primitive folk began to regard nature as an all powerful being toying with us. Killing our crops with drought and wiping us out with violent storms, massive waves(floods) and volcanos etc.
Religion is the cult developed around this issue. Which became perverted as a means of political control of the population.

Point 1, remains.

 

[punshhh]

Rubbish! The only tools we have are our senses and logic. The ultimate application of these tools is science and the scientific method. Having established that, we can conclude with absolute certainty that there is no scientific evidence, no experiment or observation that has demonstrated the existence of deities. So, without a single shred of evidence for the existence of deities, we can conclude that there are no deities -- or for that matter -- the tooth fairy.

Do we have any evidence of what existence is?

 

[Mashuna]

Defining God has become problematic due to the activity of religion.

The original definition, or meaning, is fairly easy to tease out of the confusion.

God is the word used to refer to the collection or set of;

1, The unknown basis of existence(as we know and experience it).

2, The impact of natural forces on this existence from day to day.

The second set is where the problems arise, as primitive folk began to regard nature as an all powerful being toying with us. Killing our crops with drought and wiping us out with violent storms, massive waves(floods) and volcanos etc.
Religion is the cult developed around this issue. Which became perverted as a means of political control of the population.

Point 1, remains.

But that definition of God covers anything from the mechanistic or stochastic actions of sub-atomic particles to an omniscient super being. It's not of any explanatory use.

 

[punshhh]

But that definition of God covers anything from the mechanistic or stochastic actions of sub-atomic particles to an omniscient super being. It's not of any explanatory use.

Its a realistic starting point from which to discuss existence.

1, From the theistic standpoint there is an intelligent basis for existence.

2, From the atheistic standpoint there is an unknown physical process as a basis for existence.

I have a leaning towards 1, atheists have a leaning towards 2.

Their is no proof of either being exclusive of the other. There are beliefs, but I don't care much for beliefs, they are irrational.

 

[Mashuna]

Its a realistic starting point from which to discuss existence.

1, From the theistic standpoint there is an intelligent basis for existence.

2, From the atheistic standpoint there is an unknown physical process as a basis for existence.

I have a leaning towards 1, atheists have a leaning towards 2.

Their is no proof of either being exclusive of the other. There are beliefs, but I don't care much for beliefs, they are irrational.

You've now identified two separate things, why try to conflate them and call them both God?

 

[punshhh]

You've now identified two separate things, why try to conflate them and call them both God?

I don't normally, it seems to be a convention on this forum to call position 1 God and 2 the no God position.

 

[3point14]

I woke this morning and found a small scratch on my arm. I couldn't find anything in my bed that might have caused the scratch.

I called my mate Dave, and he too awoke with a scratch on his arm and he too could find no cause.

Between us, we have decided that the scratches were caused by a small, unknown creature called a 'Scratcher'.

Clearly there are invisible Scratchers living in both my bed and in Dave's and these Scratchers caused both mine and Dave's wounds.

Seems rational to me...