John believes in a god, Joe doesn't. Who's right?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think there is much difference between Joe and John since both are not sure what they believe. Both of them think one way or the other. It seems either of them can shift from their position by persuasion. So, good that they are discussing or arguing. There is opportunity to learn and figure out things even with lack of evidence.

One major difference between them:

- a lack of evidence for or against God is entirely consistent with God not existing.

- a lack of evidence for God would be inconsistent with God existing in any way that would justify belief.

In a scenario with no evidence either way, belief that God does not exist would be reasonable and belief that God exists would be unreasonable.

 

[Segev Moran]

I slightly disagree. Not from them arguing about it, but from them looking at it independently from others. I don't like arguing and debate. It gets each side stubbornly holding to how they already see it.

I agree that if approach an argue/debate without an open mind to actually hear and try to understand what the other says, its useless, but I would say that such debates are not for the sake of the debaters rather the audience who listens to them.
The vast majority of scientific discoveries were all due to people arguing and debating other theories.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

John and Joe have an argument. John thinks there is a god and life after death.
Joe doesn't think there is a god or life after death.

Who's right?

Isn't their argument pointless being neither John or Joe can speak with the dead, so in reality neither one knows?

Being neither one knows why do they argue? Is it just human nature to argue and we will find reasons to do so regardless?

I agree. Neither of them knows who is right.
That's what makes it so jarring when John decides his church should get tax exemptions because it's doing God's work...

 

[Truthseeker]

I agree that if approach an argue/debate without an open mind to actually hear and try to understand what the other says, its useless, but I would say that such debates are not for the sake of the debaters rather the audience who listens to them.

It is that way sometimes. Good point!

The vast majority of scientific discoveries were all due to people arguing and debating other theories.

Were they? I plead ignorance about most of that. What I remember, and I may be wrong, that Einstein didn't argue with anybody before he came up with special relativity and general relativity. Maybe after. I'm not a student of scientific discoveries.

 

[BrightShadow]

One major difference between them:

- a lack of evidence for or against God is entirely consistent with God not existing.

-

One major difference between them:

- a lack of evidence for or against God is entirely consistent with God not existing.

- a lack of evidence for God would be inconsistent with God existing in any way that would justify belief.

In a scenario with no evidence either way, belief that God does not exist would be reasonable and belief that God exists would be unreasonable.

Reading my post again - I see I should have written the lines you quoted a bit differently.
I was speaking on basis of the substance of the original post. In other words - I was speaking superficially! Both Joe and John in the original post don't have any solid belief in whatever they believe. They only "think" one way or the other. To just think there is a God or just think there isn't any god is not really discussion worthy. In other words - they shouldn't be arguing at all. They should be seeking answers because they are not affirmed in what they really believe in! On that regard I meant there is not much differences between them. They are both unsure!
If you read the rest of my post - you should get the gist that I acknowledged they would have major differences if the OP meant to say they have indeed some sort of solid belief in one way or the other.

Now lets analyze what you wrote...

a lack of evidence for or against God is entirely consistent with God not existing.

If lack of evidence was consistent with something/someone not existing (in your world) then you didn't exist until you responded to my post. So, because I didn't know you existed (I still don't have much evidence) and because I don't know anything about you - does that mean you didn't exist? In my world you didn't exist until your message popped up! Similarly in my opinion it is unwise to say God doesn't exist because you think there is lack of evidence. Many people including the prophets have affirmed that they spoke with God - so why some of those testimonies not enough? Is it because you haven't met anyone trustworthy who would tell you that they spoke with God? But our court system accepts witness testimonies. Other than material evidence - entire court system is primarily based on witness testimonies. No one would be guilty or not guilty based on 'one on one' testimonies between the accuser and the accused. So, in many cases testimonies of witnesses is enough even for a judge or jury.
So, obviously "lack of evidence" is a poor criteria to judge if something really exists and it is wrong IMO to come to a conclusion that something doesn't exist. You can say it seems to you like God doesn't exist because no one is coming forward to show you evidence that would meet your requirement.

In a scenario with no evidence either way, belief that God does not exist would be reasonable and belief that God exists would be unreasonable.

In the rest of my post you quoted from - I tried to argue that proof of a creator is out there. The proof is scattered all over the creations and you would see it - if you just take the time to look around.
If you want to believe the electric eels learned to generate electricity with their internal organs on their own then it's your prerogative but I chose to believe in a mastermind behind it. If you chose to believe the bioluminescence process that fireflies use to light up with - is something that they developed on their own from their earlier forms via natural selection (Darwin's theory of evolution) then that is also your prerogative but I chose to believe otherwise!
I think it is more reasonable to believe that a creator gave them this ability rather than they developed it themselves because I am sure many animals including Human would loved to develop such qualities. It would have been a lot easier to hunt or see at night etc. If we could telepathically communicate with each other like whale does many many miles away then wouldn't that be helpful? I am sure there were plenty of need for us to develop this ability. So, why and how Whales developed this ability but not us humans?

It seems to me - you think it is reasonable to believe everything happened by "chance" and by need or due to environment rather than believing a creator is behind it all.
The probability of all things in the universe came into existence via some sort of process of "chance" is highly unlikely to me. If you read the rest of my post #25 - you may see my argument.

 

[Firelight]

John and Joe have an argument. John thinks there is a god and life after death.
Joe doesn't think there is a god or life after death.

Who's right?

Isn't their argument pointless being neither John or Joe can speak with the dead, so in reality neither one knows?

Being neither one knows why do they argue? Is it just human nature to argue and we will find reasons to do so regardless?

How do we know neither one can speak with the dead? Did they tell us so, are we to assume it, or is there proof that they cannot?

 

[Segev Moran]

It is that way sometimes. Good point!

Were they? I plead ignorance about most of that. What I remember, and I may be wrong, that Einstein didn't argue with anybody before he came up with special relativity and general relativity. Maybe after. I'm not a student of scientific discoveries.

He had many articles, letters and brain storming before he came up with his theory.
His theory actually was an "argue" with newtons gravity theory.
Please note that argue, means presenting arguments, not argue in the sense of having a fight or something like that.
Most often, in science, arguments are managed through articles and studies.

 

[Truthseeker]

He had many articles, letters and brain storming before he came up with his theory.
His theory actually was an "argue" with newtons gravity theory.
Please note that argue, means presenting arguments, not argue in the sense of having a fight or something like that.
Most often, in science, arguments are managed through articles and studies.

Okay.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree. Neither of them knows who is right.

In the narrow scope of the OP's scenario, that's true.

In real life, though... we can often say that the theist is wrong on their "meta" claims. For instance, if a theist with no evidence for their god clains that their belief is justified, they're wrong: their belief isn't justified.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In the narrow scope of the OP's scenario, that's true.

In real life, though... we can often say that the theist is wrong on their "meta" claims. For instance, if a theist with no evidence for their god clains that their belief is justified, they're wrong: their belief isn't justified.

I was limiting my comments to the OP only.
I figure the fact that I'm an atheist makes it reasonably clear what I believe regarding the rest...!

 

[Muffled]

John and Joe have an argument. John thinks there is a god and life after death.
Joe doesn't think there is a god or life after death.

Who's right?

Isn't their argument pointless being neither John or Joe can speak with the dead, so in reality neither one knows?

Being neither one knows why do they argue? Is it just human nature to argue and we will find reasons to do so regardless?

I believe John is right.

I believe one does not have to speak to the dead. I was dead once and in Heaven and that is good enough for me.

 

[Muffled]

Why does it have to be an argument, why can't it be a discussion?

I believe it becomes an argument when neither party has anything new to say and they just keep stating their positions.

 

[Muffled]

And Johns are generally right but not in your example.

I don't believe you have any way of knowing who is right.