Default position

[Trailblazer]

I dont see a logical entailment there. What about "people who believe in a god are into magical thinking" requires that one "prove that a god does not exist. " That is an interesting pair of assertions, but I do not see a chain of logical statement that go from A to B. Seems like magical thinking.

"people who believe in a god are into magical thinking" is only your personal opinion. Sure, it seems like magical thinking to you since you do not believe in God.

There is no logical entailment unless you are claiming that God exists is false because it has not yet been proven true.

 

[ppp]

"people who believe in a god are into magical thinking" is only your personal opinion. Sure, it seems like magical thinking to you since you do not believe in God.

There is no logical entailment unless you are claiming that God exists is false because it has not yet been proven true.

You are the one who asserted that "people who believe in a god are into magical thinking" requires that one "prove that a god does not exist. " If you have realized that your statement is untenable, you do not have to duck and dodge. You can simply retract it.

That is the second false statment that you have made that you could have simply retracted as an over extension. What's with the doubling down on pointless positions?

 

[Trailblazer]

You are the one who asserted that "people who believe in a god are into magical thinking" requires that one "prove that a god does not exist. " If you have realized that your statement is untenable, you do not have to duck and dodge. You can simply retract it.

Go back and look at what I said. I never said that. You are taking what I said and creating a straw man.

 

[ppp]

Go back and look at what I said.

No. I copy and pasted your statements. You go back and take a look. I have no interest in someone who is not willing to own their own BS.

 

[Trailblazer]

No. I copy and pasted your statements. You go back and take a look. I have no interest in someone who is not willing to own their own BS.

You cannot quote me saying "people who believe in a god are into magical thinking" requires that one "prove that a god does not exist " because I never said that. I did not say anything about a requirement. I only said what does not make sense to me.

Below is what I said, verbatim in post #419

It makes no sense that people who believe in God are all into magical thinking, not unless you can prove that God does not exist.
If you are claiming that God does not exist because it has not been proven that God exists then you are into fallacious thinking.
The fallacy is called argument from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false.

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Go back and look at what I said. I never said that. You are taking what I said and creating a straw man.

For the record, your initial response to the OP (post #2; dated May 2nd) was, "I do not think that belief in God is magical thinking."

I do not think that belief in God is magical thinking....
It makes no sense that the 93% of people who believe in God are all into magical thinking.
It seems to me that those believers are into rational thinking and the atheists are the ones who cannot think rationally since they deny all the evidence for God that everyone else sees.

 

[Trailblazer]

For the record, your initial response to the OP (post #2; dated May 2nd) was, "I do not think that belief in God is magical thinking."

Yes, I did say that, but I did not say this:

"people who believe in a god are into magical thinking" requires that one "prove that a god does not exist.

 

[ppp]

There is no semantic difference between this:

You cannot quote me saying "people who believe in a god are into magical thinking" requires that one "prove that a god does not exist " because I never said that.

and this:

It makes no sense that people who believe in God are all into magical thinking, not unless you can prove that God does not exist.

The term " no semantic difference " means that the two statements mean the same thing. If you intended to say something else...well, you didn't. I don't care if you can disagree. I only care if you can understand and make the basic effort to clarify your intent.

 

[Trailblazer]

There is no semantic difference between this: You cannot quote me saying "people who believe in a god are into magical thinking" requires that one "prove that a god does not exist " because I never said that.

and this: It makes no sense that people who believe in God are all into magical thinking, not unless you can prove that God does not exist.

The term " no semantic difference " means that the two statements mean the same thing. If you intended to say something else...well, you didn't. I don't care if you can disagree. I only care if you can understand and make the basic effort to clarify your intent.

They mean the same thing to you.
They do not mean the same thing to me.

To clarify my intent:
Unless you can prove that God does not exist, you cannot know that God does not exist.
Absent proof that God does not exist, it is possible that God does exist.
If God exists, people who believe in God are not into magical thinking.

 

[ppp]

To clarify my intent:
Unless you can prove that God does not exist, you cannot know that God does not exist.

That statement is pointlessly irrelavant. There was nothing in my post that either stated or implied "people who believe in a god are into magical thinking" has anything at all to do with whether or not any gods actually exist.

Let me clarify.:

1. People who believe that a god exists are indulging in magical thinking irrespective of whether or not any god exists..
2. Even if a god should happen to exist people who believe that a god exists are indulging in magical thinking
3. When you bring up the existence of your god, it is irrelavent to my statement that you are indulging in magical thinking.
4. Think that a god exists is magical thinking, even if a god exists.
5. Goto 1

 

[Trailblazer]

Now you're confusing evidence with the things you're trying to provide evidence for. Evidence, quite obviously, has to be factual and known to be true, otherwise it can't indicate the truth of something else. If your evidence is isn't known to be factual (at least to a high level of confidence), it's worthless as evidence. What's more you've jumped back into using 'proof' which really isn't relevant to matters of fact about reality.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

There are many kinds of evidence, and not all evidence is verifiable. Verifiable evidence is proof because it establishes something as a fact.

Fact: something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
fact

Evidence might be factual, but evidence does not have to be factual. Only proof has to be factual.
Proof has to be factual and known to be true.

Evidence indicates that something is true, it doesn't prove it is true.
Proof establishes that something is true as a fact.

Of course things can be true that we haven't got evidence or reasoning for, but we have to have high confidence of the truth of evidence itself, otherwise it's worthless.

I can agree with that.

I've never asked for, or expected, proof. The reason we believe most things about the world is that we have strong evidence that they are true. The same standard needs to be applied to any proposed god. Instead, when we look for any sound reasoning or objective evidence, we end up with a big fat nothing.

No, the same standards of evidence cannot be applied to God as are applied to other things in the world we have evidence for.
That is patently illogical. Since God does not exist in this world, the same standards of evidence cannot be applied.

We can never have objective evidence for God since we can never examine and evaluate God for ourselves.

Objective evidence is evidence that we can examine and evaluate for ourselves.
Objective evidence - definition and meaning - Market ...

We have objective evidence for the Messengers of God because we can examine and evaluate the Messengers for ourselves.
For example, there are actual facts surrounding the Person, the Life, and the Mission of Baha'u'llah.

I see no reason to think there are any genuine messengers. That doesn't mean that there definitely aren't, but the idea sits amongst a vast amount of other ideas and proposals that are possible, but I see no reason at all to take seriously, i.e. to think they are remotely probable.

Well, that is a step in the right direction to say that it is possible, even if only remotely possible, that there are genuine Messengers of God.
What are the vast amount of other ideas and proposals that are more possible?

I don't believe that there is any god to play hide-and-seek. However, if there is a real (omni type) god and it has any interest in us and its message is in one of the world's religions, then the obvious conclusion is that it's playing hide-and-seek, or doing something equally bizarre, like seeking out people with a predisposition to believe without evidence, or something. It would certainly not be a straightforward attempt to communicate.

God is seeking out people with a predisposition to believe with the evidence that God provides, which is the Messenger.
God's message came to humanity through all the world's religions but the message for this age is only in the Baha'i Faith.

God's communication is as straightforwards as it gets. Only the Messengers have a divine mind so only they can understand communication from God and serve as intermediaries between God and man.

Why would I want to do that, even if I could? In fact, belief isn't really a choice, you are either convinced by something or you aren't. And, of course, I don't believe I would have any meaningful free will with respect to a god.

You would only want to do that if you wanted to believe in God.
I agree that you are either convinced by something or you aren't. You cannot choose to believe if you are not convinced.
But first you have to look at the evidence in order to know that it is not convincing.

Why wouldn't you have any meaningful free will with respect to a God?

Cunningly disguised as just another human-made superstition.

Only disguised for those who do not recognize the Messenger for who He is.

 

[Trailblazer]

Let me clarify.:

1. People who believe that a god exists are indulging in magical thinking irrespective of whether or not any god exists..
2. Even if a god should happen to exist people who believe that a god exists are indulging in magical thinking
3. When you bring up the existence of your god, it is irrelavent to my statement that you are indulging in magical thinking.
4. Think that a god exists is magical thinking, even if a god exists.
5. Goto 1

Magical thinking, or superstitious thinking, is the belief that unrelated events are causally connected despite the absence of any plausible causal link ...

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Magical_thinking

What is the meaning of magical thinking?

Magical thinking is when a person believes that specific words, thoughts, emotions, or rituals can influence the external world. For example, they might worry that if they do not wish someone well, then something bad will happen to the person. Many people engage in magical thinking.Aug 30, 2022

What is magical thinking? Examples and impact
Medical News Today
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com › articles › magic


Why do you think that people who believe that a God exists are indulging in magical thinking irrespective of whether or not any God exists?
Why do you think that believing that a God exists is magical thinking, if God exists?
‎

 

[ppp]

Why do you think that people who believe that a God exists are indulging in magical thinking irrespective of whether or not any God exists?

Magical thinking is about the fallacious cognitive process used to reach a conclusion. Not whether the conclusion is true.
Concluding that a rooster is the cause of the sunrise based on the currently demonstrable evidence would be an exercise in magical thinking. Even if it turns out to be the case that there is a rooster that is the cause of the sun rise.

 

[Trailblazer]

Magical thinking is about the fallacious cognitive process used to reach a conclusion. Not whether the conclusion is true.
Concluding that a rooster is the cause of the sunrise based on the currently demonstrable evidence would be an exercise in magical thinking. Even if it turns out to be the case that there is a rooster that is the cause of the sun rise.

So why do you think that people who believe that a God exists used a fallacious cognitive process to reach a conclusion?

 

[ppp]

So why do you think that people who believe that a God exists used a fallacious cognitive process to reach a conclusion?

All sorts of reasons. Solace. Society. Sex. Survival. Security. Or the fear if loss of those things.
Or just a lack of applied education in critical thinking.
Or the fear inculcated by indoctrination.
Or a need for a sense of importance.
Or shunning

 

[ratiocinator]

Circular reasoning CAN be evidence...

No. It really can't. Simply because you have to assume the truth of what you are looking for evidence for. Circular reasoning is always worthless, that's why it's considered to be a fallacy:

Circular reasoning - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy, but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion.​

As such, the mission, should you choose to accept it, is to determine if the Messenger really spoke for God. It's that simple.

Why should I bother?

Even if that could be done, why do you think everyone would believe that message?

They'd have to assess the evidence themselves. I thought one of your objections to god making itself obviously known was that people would then have no choice? Now you're saying that they would.

Of course that is not subject to proof. How could anyone ever prove something like that?

As I keep on saying, nobody (sensible) is looking for proof. Just solid, objective evidence. The words of a few people though history get nowhere near to being that.

It would be a mistake for the reason I gave. Creation is not 'necessarily' evidence for a God.

'Creation' is just not evidence for a God, period. It would be like the prosecution in a murder trial trying to convict somebody entirely on the basis of the 'evidence' that the victim was dead.

Messengers of God are not 'worthless as evidence' for God just because it's circular.

See above. Circular reasoning is an (informal) fallacy. It is considered as such for very good reasons.

 

[Trailblazer]

No. It really can't. Simply because you have to assume the truth of what you are looking for evidence for. Circular reasoning is always worthless, that's why it's considered to be a fallacy:

Circular reasoning - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy, but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion.​

You are correct in saying that the 'argument' is worthless.

Circular reasoning , where you implicitly assume what you set out to show, is always logically invalid. The conclusion you are drawing may nonetheless be true, but the argument is always worthless.

Is circular reasoning always indicative of a flawed argument?​

Quora
https://www.quora.com › Is-circular-reasoning-always-in.

But that was not my point. My point was that if the premise is true, the conclusion must be true. That means that whether or not it can be 'proven' that the premise is true, if the premise s true, the conclusion must be true.

So if the premise Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

Why should I bother?

You shouldn't bother, not unless you want to know if Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, or not.

They'd have to assess the evidence themselves. I thought one of your objections to god making itself obviously known was that people would then have no choice? Now you're saying that they would.

No, that was never my objection to God making Himself known. People would still have a choice to believe or not.
It was never MY objection to God making Himself obviously known so that everyone would know He exists. It is God who objects to that, which is why God is not obvious to everyone.

As I keep on saying, nobody (sensible) is looking for proof. Just solid, objective evidence. The words of a few people though history get nowhere near to being that.

I guess we are back to square one. When you ask for 'solid' objective evidence you are asking for proof.

In its simplest form, objective evidence is that which can be proven through analysis, measurement, observation, and other types of research.

What everybody ought to know about Objective Evidence? Jan Dils

Be honest with your complaints and talk to your medical providers about all of the symptoms you are experiencing so they can give you objective evidence.

jandils.com

Since God can never be analyzed, measured, observed, or researched, we can never have objective for God.
That is why we need to look at the Messenger of God who has been observed and can me researched.

'Creation' is just not evidence for a God, period. It would be like the prosecution in a murder trial trying to convict somebody entirely on the basis of the 'evidence' that the victim was dead.

Don't you ever watch true crime shows on TV, like Forensic Files? I watch them almost exclusively. Yes, it is very difficult to get a conviction without a body, which is why criminals go to such lengths to get rid of the body. However it can be done if there is enough other forensic evidence such as DNA, fingerprints, etc.

See above. Circular reasoning is an (informal) fallacy. It is considered as such for very good reasons.

It doesn't matter if it is circular reasoning. If Messengers are the evidence for God that God provided, that is what they are.
No matter what evidence God provided it could never be proven to have originated from God, and that is why logical arguments are a worthless way to try to prove that God exists. It cannot be done, but that does not mean that God does not exist. It only means God is not subject to proof.

 

[ppp]

But that was not my point. My point was that if the premise is true, the conclusion must be true. That means that whether or not it can be 'proven' that the premise is true, if the premise s true, the conclusion must be true.

So if the premise Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

If the premise that Baha'u'llah is my poolboy is true, then the conclusion that I exist must be true.
I exist.
Therefore Baha'u'llah is my poolboy.

 

[shunyadragon]

It seems to me that an atheist's default position is, in fact, atheism.

Absent of proof for a god, they don't believe in one.

I don't believe this is the default position today for atheists including agnostics. Proof is not an issue, and an impossible quest. Yes, the hurdle Theists have to hurdle is yes, there is no evidence for God(s) particularly the 'hands 0n personally involved God of thee ancient Abrahamic religions.

Atheists on the other hand today argue there is no reason to believe based on the claims presented by Theists based on an ancient tribal view.
I believe in a Universal 'Source' some call God that does not have agenda, baggage of the ancient world God(s), but yes atheists and agnostics still argue against the necessity of any God(s).

I have no proof of god, but I think that is because I haven't diligently searched long enough yet. I am sort of young. For me, absent of proof, I believe in a higher power. It would have to be proven to me that God does not exist like the gaps in knowledge would have to be eradicated I think.

Perhaps, after some years of searching, I will become an athesist if I find no experiences which reinforce my faith. But I've already have had experiences which reinforce my faith, so I just have to see if living a religious life will lead to more of those.

So my default position is one of magical thinking. Does that make sense?

It does not help your case, because first there is no proof either way, and you have to be on firmer grounds than your own assertions.

 

[ratiocinator]

You are correct in saying that the 'argument' is worthless.

Why do you keep bringing it up, then?

My point was that if the premise is true, the conclusion must be true. That means that whether or not it can be 'proven' that the premise is true, if the premise s true, the conclusion must be true.

So if the premise Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

Yeah, and if all toasters were made of gold and all things made of gold were time machines, then my toaster would be a time machine. Err, so what?

You shouldn't bother, not unless you want to know if Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, or not.

Since I have found no reason whatsoever to think that there is a God, and, even if there were, I've found no reason to think that Baha'u'llah knew any more about it than anybody else, the amount of time worth devoting to this seems minimal. I dunno, say a minute, or so?

No, that was never my objection to God making Himself known. People would still have a choice to believe or not.
It was never MY objection to God making Himself obviously known so that everyone would know He exists. It is God who objects to that, which is why God is not obvious to everyone.

Okay.

I guess we are back to square one. When you ask for 'solid' objective evidence you are asking for proof.

In its simplest form, objective evidence is that which can be proven through analysis, measurement, observation, and other types of research.

Your link was to a legal site. So, firstly, this raises different concepts of 'proof'. There is what I - somebody who basically takes a scientific, mathematical, and logical approach - would call proof, which is absolute proof. This is only available in pure logic and mathematics. It can never apply to questions about reality as there is always some doubt, even if it's minimal. Then there is legal proof, which actually has two levels (in the UK, anyway): "beyond reasonable doubt" (criminal) or "on the balance of probabilities" (civil).

Secondly, the site is a bit ambiguous anyway because it says "objective evidence is that which can be proven", so the evidence can be proven, not the conclusion? It's worth noting that none of the examples are 100% accurate. No test is foolproof.

Don't you ever watch true crime shows on TV, like Forensic Files? I watch them almost exclusively. Yes, it is very difficult to get a conviction without a body, which is why criminals go to such lengths to get rid of the body. However it can be done if there is enough other forensic evidence such as DNA, fingerprints, etc.

You missed the point. You can't convict a specific person just on the basis that the victim is dead. You actually have to show why that person is responsible. That's why 'creation' isn't evidence for a god. There are endless different creation myths as well as what we know from science, and that's before we get to the logical problems.

You'd have to find some specific evidence that your specific God was responsible for creation, just like you need specific evidence that links the accused to the death in a murder trial. It's not enough to say "creation exists" any more than it's enough to say "the victim is dead".

It doesn't matter if it is circular reasoning. If Messengers are the evidence for God that God provided, that is what they are.

If God thinks the messengers are evidence for it, then God is an idiot. Sorry, but circular reasoning is a fallacy and is never evidence.