The default position...

[ThePainefulTruth]

So, finally, my question.

Can the default position be used vice versa?

I would like to know specifically if it would be possible for a theist to turn the default position in their favor.

Thank you for viewing my thread, let the debates begin!

I think we go at it wrong by asking if God exists. Since there is nothing but hearsay evidence for the existence of God of any of the revealed religions, attempting to prove it will go no where.

The question should be about how the universe came to be. There being no evidence for or against a sentience behind its beginning, and given that at least so far, there is an information fire wall from "before", anyone declaring there was or wasn't such a consciousness involved is necessarily burdened with the necessity of proof. The only default position, given the complete lack of any evidence at all, is agnosticism.

That said, it's reasonable to speculate about morality without a God or an afterlife; or about why God, if It exists, would have initiated a 14-70 billion year old universe at all, and then remained hidden. Wouldn't a God that had such power, have had the power to do anything instantly? The only thing such an incredible amount of time does, following the principle of (way) out of sight, (way) out of mind, is to isolate and insulate the mystery--if there is one.

 

[Bunyip]

God is Love. He is also holy n just. The only thing that is keeping u alive is His unconditional love for u. He knows what u have gone through to become who u r today. He knows what is in your heart n mind n how to deal with u in His own time. So I'm not the least bothered by what u think or said. If God want u to be a belieuer someday, u will be. And u will be dealing with people who r just like u now. So, may God be with u, always.[emoji56]

And you wonder why people are leaving the churches? So your murderous God who you were just saying will destroy me - is the God of love huh?
That kind of lovin' you can keep.

 

[Augustus]

Can the default position be used vice versa?

I would like to know specifically if it would be possible for a theist to turn the default position in their favor.

Thank you for viewing my thread, let the debates begin!

The default position would be that, throughout history, the vast majority of people have believed in some form of religion/spirituality/etc (choose best word for any individual belief system).

I think that the question should not be 'Does God exist?', but "Is rejection of long standing religious/spiritual teachings and rituals a goal ultimately beneficial to society?"

The burden of proof is then most certainly on those who reject such traditions.

 

[Curious George]

The default position would be that, throughout history, the vast majority of people have believed in some form of religion/spirituality/etc (choose best word for any individual belief system).

I think that the question should not be 'Does God exist?', but "Is rejection of long standing religious/spiritual teachings and rituals a goal ultimately beneficial to society?"

The burden of proof is then most certainly on those who reject such traditions.

The default position is actually a rejection of all propositions, (in this case "God exists" and "God does not exist"), until evidence favoring one of the choices becomes available.

Personal testimony and popularity are certainly evidences, but they are weak evidences.

Your point doesn't change the default question but is relevant to the default question because it addresses the fact that evidence is readily available. However, do not think that the other side lacks evidence.

In reality, atheists have both challenged the credibility of much of the evidence put forth by theists and put forward much of their own.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

The default position would be that, throughout history, the vast majority of people have believed in some form of religion/spirituality/etc (choose best word for any individual belief system).

I think that the question should not be 'Does God exist?', but "Is rejection of long standing religious/spiritual teachings and rituals a goal ultimately beneficial to society?"

The burden of proof is then most certainly on those who reject such traditions.

So those who adopted those traditions based on (what?), should continue to enjoy their acquired power for the sole reason that their power and influence has lasted so long. Tradition is rarely anything more than its own justification.

The default position is actually a rejection of all propositions, (in this case "God exists" and "God does not exist"), until evidence favoring one of the choices becomes available.

IOW, an agnostic stance, in the absence of hard evidence (or concerning the existence of God, the absence of ANY evidence), is the only honest position.

Personal testimony and popularity are certainly evidences, but they are weak evidences.

When is hearsay ever valid evidence?

Your point doesn't change the default question but is relevant to the default question because it addresses the fact that evidence is readily available. However, do not think that the other side lacks evidence.

Concerning God, there's no evidence at all--hearsay evidence being of no value.

In reality, atheists have both challenged the credibility of much of the evidence put forth by theists and put forward much of their own.

The only evidence they've put forth is that against the revealed religions.The only two left standing are atheists and deists, with zero evidence for or against either.

 

[Curious George]

So those who adopted those traditions based on (what?), should continue to enjoy their acquired power for the sole reason that their power and influence has lasted so long. Tradition is rarely anything more than its own justification.

Hearsay is often considered good evidence. If your mother told you that you sister was hungry would you reject this?

Personal testimony is not hearsay.

And in administrative decisions hearsay may be relied upon.

Furthermore, there are many exceptions wherein hearsay is permitted even during trial.

And were you aware that wills are hearsay?

I'm not saying that one should believe hearsay but the simple truth is we do believe hearsay. To say otherwise is absolute hypocrisy. If you are going to attack personal testimony and hearsay, do so on credibility and reliability. Come on now, step up that game.

 

[Tumah]

So the default position has recently come to my attention in my long hours of surfing the web.

This is my default position for long hours of surfing the web.

Sorry. I have trouble controlling myself at times.

 

[Augustus]

So those who adopted those traditions based on (what?), should continue to enjoy their acquired power for the sole reason that their power and influence has lasted so long. Tradition is rarely anything more than its own justification.

Tradition is usually the result of what has proved effective in the past; what has stood the test of time. This doesn't mean tradition should never be changed, or all traditions are good, but that people should be wary of replacing tradition as what follows is frequently worse.

We are terrible at predicting the effects of our actions yet we refuse to accept this fact.

Writing off tradition as an anachronism that can be easily swept aside by contemporary human rationality is hubristic.

That is why it is much more pertinent to question religions role within society rather than focus on the facile topic of does God exist. As relates to the OP, tradition (in this case religious tradition) should be the default position. The burden of evidence on why people should move away from it should be on those advocating 'progress'.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Totally rubbish. Be careful what u say about our God. He could just make u suffer a great deal while u are alive till u drop dead in a pig style. [emoji56]

I agree! You should be very careful about what you say about me to God. Incidentally, he was very upset about what you just wrote, but I told him to calm down and get over it. He still seems a little upset though, so in case you have any bad news in the future it's totally his fault and not mine. He can be a little petulant at times.

 

[lstan135]

I agree! You should be very careful about what you say about me to God. Incidentally, he was very upset about what you just wrote, but I told him to calm down and get over it. He still seems a little upset though, so in case you have any bad news in the future it's totally his fault and not mine. He can be a little petulant at times.

Here's a prayer just for u: Father, forgive him, for he know not what he's doing. Amen.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Here's a prayer just for u: Father, forgive him, for he know not what he's doing. Amen.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Here's a prayer just for u: Father, forgive him, for he know not what he's doing. Amen.

It's okay, God says he forgives you (although, I gave him permission, of course).

 

[Bunyip]

The default position is actually a rejection of all propositions, (in this case "God exists" and "God does not exist"), until evidence favoring one of the choices becomes available.

Personal testimony and popularity are certainly evidences, but they are weak evidences.

Your point doesn't change the default question but is relevant to the default question because it addresses the fact that evidence is readily available. However, do not think that the other side lacks evidence.

In reality, atheists have both challenged the credibility of much of the evidence put forth by theists and put forward much of their own.

Not believing in a given claim is not a proposition. The only relevant claim is that God exists.
Thus the default remains atheism.

 

[Curious George]

Not believing in a given claim is not a proposition. The only relevant claim is that God exists.
Thus the default remains atheism.

Lol, sooner or later you will get this. God does not exist is a proposition.

 

[Bunyip]

Lol, sooner or later you will get this. God does not exist is a proposition.

Sure, you can write anything as a proposition - the fact remains that there is only two possible states, belief and disbelief. The latter being the default.

 

[Curious George]

Sure, you can write anything as a proposition - the fact remains that there is only two possible states, belief and disbelief. The latter being the default.

Yes, well the default position is rejection of the two propositions 1. God exists 2. God does not exist. From these two propositions we can have four possible states. Belief in one and disbelief in two, belief in two and disbelief in one, disbelief in both one and two, and belief in both one and two.

This is simple: two possible states with two possible propositions leads to four possible positions. Simple!

 

[Bunyip]

Yes, well the default position is rejection of the two propositions 1. God exists 2. God does not exist. From these two propositions we can have four possible states. Belief in one and disbelief in two, belief in two and disbelief in one, disbelief in both one and two, and belief in both one and two.

This is simple: two possible states with two possible propositions leads to four possible positions. Simple!

That doesn't make sense - how can you reject a claim, and not reject it at the same time? There is still only two possible positions.
You seem stuck on this strange dissonance of neither believing, nor not believing in God. It is an illogical position.

Using your system:
Belief in 1. = Theism.
Disbelief in 2. = Theism.
Disbelief in both 1. And 2. = Nonsense.
Belief in both 1. And 2. = Nonsense.

 

[Curious George]

That doesn't make sense - how can you reject a claim, and not reject it at the same time? There is still only two possible positions.
You seem stuck on this strange dissonance of neither believing, nor not believing in God. It is an illogical position.

Using your system:
Belief in 1. = Theism.
Disbelief in 2. = Theism.
Disbelief in both 1. And 2. = Nonsense.
Belief in both 1. And 2. = Nonsense.

You seem stuck on this desire to remove one's ability to reject to claims or accept opposing propositions.

Why are they nonsense?

 

[Bunyip]

You seem stuck on this desire to remove one's ability to reject to claims or accept opposing propositions.

Why are they nonsense?

Because it is not possible to neither hold, nor not hold a belief in God.

 

[Curious George]

Because it is not possible to neither hold, nor not hold a belief in God.

Why not?