Atheists don't like the idea of a laissez-faire God....

[Augustus]

If there's no evidence for or against either possibility, it's 50-50, however much one doesn't like it.

No, it is unknown. You are confusing your lack of knowledge and chance of guessing correctly with the actuality of the situation.

An analogy: Bob is playing tennis against Rob, you know nothing about either of them so you are saying the probability is 50/50 that either wins. This is false.

In reality, Bob is a professional and Rob is a gibbon, so the probability of Bob winning is actually 100%.

Your lack of information means you have a 50/50 chance of guessing the correct answer. The probability of either one winning though is unknown from your perspective.

50/50 relates to a condition of risk; your odds of guessing right are risk

God's actual existence is not risk though but a condition of uncertainty meaning no odds can be computed.

 

[idav]

What makes me an atheist is that I have no active belief concerning god(s).

OK I see what your saying. However the example question I posed didn't ask "whats the reason for existence". I asked if you believe/think god did it which is "no" even with the lack of belief definition of atheism. Even if I asked "do you know" that would still be a yes or no answer, only the person being asked would know the answer to.

Looking at it another way, I feel there must be an opinion on the issue if a person answered "no" pertaining to belief in every theistic concept presented to them. Especially when theological concepts certainly would have been presented as source of creation, ultimate reality etc etc. Believing the source of reality is god or not, is a choice, but that could end up being a debate on epistemology(justified belief vs opinion) and ontology(what things are), a whole other can of worms that overlap in this case.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

We don't even know what all the possibilities to measure against. What's the likelihood that either of those 2 alternatives are the case? No one could ever know because no would could know the likelihood of different outcomes that we don't even know.

People keep saying that but can't come up with a possibility other than spontaneous or supernatural creation by a God which simply watched from then on.

I agree, it's just a useless proposition. If God's indifference is the same as the indifference as no God at all, then I don't really understand anyone would care...

I know it's just not on atheists' radar, but hope is an enormous difference--threescore and ten vs. eternity.

Paine believed in God. So you believe in God?[/quote}


Unfortunately, we can't ask him if he'd agree with your highly detailed definition.

I have too much respect for Thomas Paine to believe that he would have agreed with such a hubristic, baseless assumption.

First time I've heard hope referred to as hubris.

one of the sentences seems really really romantic to me in a sense. Odd. I'm gonna have to like it even though, I already know, thanks Jesus.lol

Not sure which sentence you're referring to, but you'll note my tag is romantic-cynic.

No, it is unknown. You are confusing your lack of knowledge and chance of guessing correctly with the actuality of the situation.

So you possess the knowledge of how the universe came to be spontaneously. I'm in good company btw.

An analogy: Bob is playing tennis against Rob, you know nothing about either of them so you are saying the probability is 50/50 that either wins. This is false.

What could I base different odds on?

In reality, Bob is a professional and Rob is a gibbon, so the probability of Bob winning is actually 100%.

But you don't know that, remember. We're talking about the odds based on our knowledge. If we were able to find out some evidence from before the Big Bang, then yeah, we could adjust the odds or even declare one to be the Truth.

Your lack of information means you have a 50/50 chance of guessing the correct answer. The probability of either one winning though is unknown from your perspective.

All of us lack the information, so none of us can do anything but guess, or hope.

50/50 relates to a condition of risk; your odds of guessing right are risk.

By Jove, you've got it. I have a 50/50 chance of being right or wrong, but in the case at hand, there's no one to say which guess was right.

God's actual existence is not risk though but a condition of uncertainty meaning no odds can be computed.

Which is why the question concerns the cause of the universe, not God's existence. If the premise was whether God exists or doesn't, it wouldn't work because we can't prove a negative. All we know is the universe exists, with the cause being unknown.

 

[Augustus]

But you don't know that, remember. We're talking about the odds based on our knowledge. If we were able to find out some evidence from before the Big Bang, then yeah, we could adjust the odds or even declare one to be the Truth.

There are no odds based on our knowledge, only odds of us randomly guessing correctly between 2 options.

Seeing as you would also have to accept there is the possibility of additional options that you are currently aware your odds on guessing correctly are actually under 50%.

It would not be a 'rational' bet to take.

All of us lack the information, so none of us can do anything but guess, or hope.

Or withhold judgement due to lack of information.

Your argument is 'we don't know, therefore the specific god type that I agree with done it and you can't prove otherwise'.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

There are no odds based on our knowledge, only odds of us randomly guessing correctly between 2 options.

Exactly. And the odds of guessing the right answer between two options on which you have no evidence is 50-50--it's no different than a coin flip.

Seeing as you would also have to accept there is the possibility of additional options that you are currently aware your odds on guessing correctly are actually under 50%.

What additional options? A pink unicorn is nothing more than one of the thousands of irrational myths that have been manufactured.

Or withhold judgement due to lack of information.

OK, but it's still just two possibilities whether you favor one or not.

Your argument is 'we don't know, therefore the specific god type that I agree with done it and you can't prove otherwise'.

The only reasonably possible God is one that doesn't interact. You can reasonably eliminate the rest. You put atheists in the irrational position of arguing for all the revealed gods for the sole purpose of having more than two options.

 

[Augustus]

Exactly. And the odds of guessing the right answer between two options on which you have no evidence is 50-50--it's no different than a coin flip.

Your position is based on being rational rather than pure guesswork though.

With an unknown probability it is not rational to assume both options are equally likely in actuality.

When you add in more options it becomes even more problematic.

What additional options?

Known and unknown ones.

OK, but it's still just two possibilities whether you favor one or not.

Only if you want to be irrational, which defeats the purpose of your argument.

The only reasonably possible God is one that doesn't interact. You can reasonably eliminate the rest. You put atheists in the irrational position of arguing for all the revealed gods for the sole purpose of having more than two options.

Believing that they are extremely unlikely indeed =/= 'arguing for'

 

[Rick O'Shez]

With an unknown probability it is not rational to assume both options are equally likely in actuality.
When you add in more options it becomes even more problematic.

There is simply no way of assessing probabilities in a scenario like this. The deist version of God is only one of many possible versions of God, and then there are many possibilities not involving God at all, some of which we probably haven't even thought of yet.

Generally it seems to me that beliefs like deism and pantheism represent a progressive watering down of theism, to the point where it more resembles atheism. I struggle to see the point of it myself.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Your position is based on being rational rather than pure guesswork though.

With an unknown probability it is not rational to assume both options are equally likely in actuality.

When you add in more options it becomes even more problematic.



Known and unknown ones.



Only if you want to be irrational, which defeats the purpose of your argument.



Believing that they are extremely unlikely indeed =/= 'arguing for'

There is simply no way of assessing probabilities in a scenario like this. The deist version of God is only one of many possible versions of God, and then there are many possibilities not involving God at all, some of which we probably haven't even thought of yet.

Generally it seems to me that beliefs like deism and pantheism represent a progressive watering down of theism, to the point where it more resembles atheism. I struggle to see the point of it myself.

Logical Fallacies:

• 
  False equivalence – describing a situation of logical and apparent equivalence, when in fact there is none.

You can come up with any number of equivalent terms for the same thing, e.g. using "the mushroom effect" as an alternative term for spontaneous creation, but they're still effectively the same thing since we have no idea if such a thing even happened in the first place, or if it did, how it did. Same for God. You can call It a Pink Unicorn all you want, but they're still undifferentiated, except for the image it calls up.

 

[Jumi]

If there's no evidence for or against either possibility, it's 50-50, however much one doesn't like it.

That would mean it's actually something like a millionth chance for each unknown option, even the possibilities that you don't like existing.

 

[idav]

Generally it seems to me that beliefs like deism and pantheism represent a progressive watering down of theism, to the point where it more resembles atheism. I struggle to see the point of it myself.

I see that kind of sentiment a lot. I see it similar to asking why an atheist should be religious at all, like Buddhist or what not, to the point of some believing in things like Nirvana which seem similar to notions of an "ultimate oneness" or "ultimate realty". Not that its wrong to believe in anything and be atheist but then I start to see it as mainly semantically different when a person is heavy on religious and/or spiritual values.

 

[Augustus]

Logical Fallacies:

• 
  False equivalence – describing a situation of logical and apparent equivalence, when in fact there is none.

You can come up with any number of equivalent terms for the same thing, e.g. using "the mushroom effect" as an alternative term for spontaneous creation, but they're still effectively the same thing since we have no idea if such a thing even happened in the first place, or if it did, how it did. Same for God. You can call It a Pink Unicorn all you want, but they're still undifferentiated, except for the image it calls up.

Another exhibit as to support my belief that referring to logical fallacies should be banned on RF as they are almost always incorrectly used.

How can you prove, for example, that the big bang wasn't caused by super advanced aliens, or by some other means that you are completely incapable of comprehending?

Your 50/50 argument rests on this.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Another exhibit as to support my belief that referring to logical fallacies should be banned on RF as they are almost always incorrectly used.

How can you prove, for example, that the big bang wasn't caused by super advanced aliens, or by some other means that you are completely incapable of comprehending?

Your 50/50 argument rests on this.

Thus demonstrating that I wasn't using it incorrectly.

"The very lack of evidence is thus treated as evidence; the absence of smoke proves that the fire is very carefully hidden."

—C.S. Lewis (in a glimpse of clarity)

The argument from ignorance (or argumentum ad ignorantiam and negative proof) is a logical fallacy that claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false because it has not been proven true. This is often phrased as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

 

[Augustus]

Thus demonstrating that I wasn't using it incorrectly.

"The very lack of evidence is thus treated as evidence; the absence of smoke proves that the fire is very carefully hidden."

—C.S. Lewis (in a glimpse of clarity)

The argument from ignorance (or argumentum ad ignorantiam and negative proof) is a logical fallacy that claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false because it has not been proven true. This is often phrased as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Jesus wept. Another horrific fallacy fail.

My claim is that the probabilities are unknown due to lack of evidence.

You are making a positive argument that there is a 50/50 probability because there are only 2 possible options. This entails you proving that there are only 2 possible options. If you can't prove there are only 2 options you have to accept that there is a possibility, however small, that there are more than 2 options.

Why don't you focus on this rather than confusing yourself with generic fallacies that you clearly don't understand.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Thankyou for your response. Sorry it has taken so long to reply.

Richard Dawkins

(atheist) debate with John Lennox www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw begin @ 4:30
"We could take a deist god, sort of god of the physicists. A god of somebody like Paul Davies who devised the laws of physics, god the mathematician, god who put together the cosmos in the first place and then sat back and watched everything happen and that would be…the deist god would be one…I think one would be…one could make a reasonable respectable case for that. Not a case that I would accept, but I think it’s a serious discussion that we could have."
@ 37:45
"You could possibly persuade me that there was some kind of creative force in the universe, there was some kind of physical mathematical genius who created everything…the expanding universe, devised quantum theory, relativity, and all that. You can possibly persuade me of that."

This is great. But not exactly consistent. He says that he does not accept it. Then goes on to say he could be persuaded. Which one is it?

He also says deism is watered down theism (elsewhere though). Of which he is completely dismissive of.

Lawrence Krauss

(scientific skeptic) debate with William L. Craig " youtube.com/watch?v=Fs_pgaSrxP8 begin @ 3:55…Uploaded 03/30/11

“I actually think deism, the possible existence of a divine intelligence is not an implausible postulate. And I won’t argue against it. It could be, I mean the Universe is an amazing place."

"So I think the possible existence of a divine intelligence is perfectly plausible and addresses some of the perplexing issues associated with the beginning of the Universe."

Yes. One could say that Krauss is a deist

Victor Stenger

(atheist) in Huffpost Blog. 06/30/11

“In short, the world looks just like it should look if there is no God with these attributes. True that this does not rule out other gods, such a deist god that does not act in the universe. But we can rule out the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God to a high degree of probability.”

Nope. He just says that a particular argument does not preclude deism. Not an acceptance of deism by any means.

Stephen Hawking

(atheist?-skeptic)

“An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!" A Brief History of Time (1988), pp. 8-9. (note: an expanding universe was initially considered a blow to atheism since it indicated a beginning as opposed to the Steady State model. But that, ultimately, is unable to sidestep the issue of a beginning anyway.)

Does not address deism at all.

Fred Hoyle

An atheist who embraced intelligent design???

Not a quote

Carl Sagan

(scientific skeptic) God and Carl Sagan: Is the Cosmos Big Enough for Both of Them? Edward Wakin (May 1981)

“To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed.”

Does not address deism.

Albert Einstein

(agnostic) Einstein: The Life and Times. Clark, Ronald W. (1971) p.425

“I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."….

…."In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."

Does not address deism.

Isaac Asimov

(atheist) interviewed by Paul Kurtz on “Science and the Bible”, in Free Inquiry, Spring 1982

“I believe there's enough evidence for us to think that a big bang took place. But there is no evidence whatsoever to suppose that a superhuman being said, "Let it be." However, neither is there any
evidence against it.”

A denial of of xtianity. Does not address deism.

Charles Darwin

(supposed atheist) Letter to John Fordyce, 7 May 1879
"I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."

An acceptance of agnosticism. No mention of deism.

So i would say that one of them could be said to be a deist.

Not real great evidence for the rest of them.

Even if they were all deist. That does not make them right.

That's an argument from authority and we don't do arguments from authority.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

This is great. But not exactly consistent. He says that he does not accept it. Then goes on to say he could be persuaded. Which one is it?

He also says deism is watered down theism (elsewhere though). Of which he is completely dismissive of.

It depends on where you look in his timeline. He, like many atheists, relied for a long time on debunking the revealed religion straw man. And like many of them, he had to admit that deism couldn't be reasonably ruled out, but he and many of them don't necessarily like it.

Yes. One could say that Krauss is a deist

One who you could actually call him a former atheist, yes.

Nope. He just says that a particular argument does not preclude deism. Not an acceptance of deism by any means.

As I said above, that's what many of them say, though they still retain a preference for atheism, which is reasonable. Once again, the only difference I've claimed between the two, for us in this world, is hope.

Does not address deism at all.

No, his position is essentially reasoned agnosticism, with a chip on his shoulder for atheism. leaving......

Not a quote

Would you not say to yourself, in whatever language supercalculating intellects use, "Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be less than 1 part in 1040000." Of course you would. … I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 Mev energy level in the nucleus of 12C to the 7.12 Mev level in 16O. If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix … A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.

• Fred Hoyle, "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections", in Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, volume 20, September 1982, p. 16

A denial of xtianity. Does not address deism.

It had nothing to do with Christianity. All he said was, a superhuman being could have done it.....or not.

An acceptance of agnosticism. Does not address deism.

He denied atheism, so then what other reasonable alternative is there? Even back to the early American deists, most didn't like to use the word because it was such a loaded term. Even Paine, who was the most outspoken American "deist" having written The Age of Reason, never described himself as one. They considered themselves to be men of reason, which preempted revealed religion. So what's left besides atheism and deism?

So i would say that one of them could be said to be a deist.

The point is that none of them could rule out deism or the possibility of a (laissez-faire) God.

Not real great evidence for the rest of them.

Even if they were all deist. That does not make them right.

Yet people have been influenced by them or people like them to accept atheism. And there had to be great impetus for some of these examples with established reputations as atheists, to admit another possibility can't be ruled out. And again, I'm not arguing against atheism, only that the only reasonable atheism is soft or agnostic atheism. Hard atheism is based as much in emotional blind faith as any evangelical religion.

That's an argument from authority and we don't do arguments from authority.[/QUOTE]