Theism, Agnosticism, & Atheism: Which Is Logically The Weakest?

[dfnj]

I also look at evidence rationally. I could not be persuaded to do otherwise.
So what it boils down to is what you consider rational vs. what I consider rational.

Not me. I see the Universe and what happens in it as completely insane. I am just amazed by how reality always turns out to be so much stranger than anything I could have ever imagined. Whatever is the driving force is in the Universe creating strange realizations to occur in reality, it's not following simple laws. On the surface it make look orderly, but it's turtles and turtles of rogue waves converging all the way down!

 

[dfnj]

I'm not sure why the number of believers is evidence in and of itself. I can see it as being evidence about what people believe, but that is a far cry from evidence of the truth of the beliefs. And, in fact, people have believed a LOT of things that are known now to be wrong.

According to Tibetan monks, everything we think and say about reality is a delusion.

 

[We Never Know]

Not me. I see the Universe and what happens in it as completely insane. I am just amazed by how reality always turns out to be so much stranger than anything I could have ever imagined. Whatever is the driving force is in the Universe creating strange realizations to occur in reality, it's not following simple laws. On the surface it make look orderly, but it's turtles and turtles of rogue waves converging all the way down!

I saw one argument once about the universe not following laws. I actually didn't have a reply to the poster. He said if the universe followed laws it wouldn't be here because those laws didn't exist when the universe came into existence. Oh! And something like the universe created the laws, the laws didn't create the universe.

Edit:
@dfnj maybe @Polymath257 can answer things like that for you.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's what I mean, it messes with you.

I do not consider that a mess. If I really believe in God sacrifices are part of the deal. I cannot be selfish and live only for myself, but if I did I would be a hypocrite because that is not what my religion teaches.

 

[Polymath257]

According to Tibetan monks, everything we think and say about reality is a delusion.

And they may be correct. On the other hand, they may be delusional.

 

[Falvlun]

I'm not sure why the number of believers is evidence in and of itself. I can see it as being evidence about what people believe, but that is a far cry from evidence of the truth of the beliefs. And, in fact, people have believed a LOT of things that are known now to be wrong.

Number of believers makes things more plausible. Not sure how you could deny this.

Imagine if I told you I saw a flying saucer last night. Not particularly convincing.

Now imagine you see the news and thousands of people are claiming they saw a flying saucer last night. Makes my claim a bit more plausible, no?

One more example. Think of a court case. One witness is good. But if you have two witnesses, that’s even better. Two witnesses is more plausible than one; it helps corroborate the testimony.

Yes, people believe incorrect things all the time. I’m not saying numerous believers proves that something is true. I am merely saying that it makes something more plausible, more believable. It’s a little sprinkle of evidence.

 

[dfnj]

I saw one argument once about the universe not following laws. I actually didn't have a reply to the poster. He said if the universe followed laws it wouldn't be here because those laws didn't exist when the universe came into existence. Oh! And something like the universe created the laws, the laws didn't create the universe.

It might have been me arguing the Universe does not follow laws.

The idea of laws is very anthropomorphic. Only humans have laws. Only civilized societies have laws. CS Lewis once said, "to say a stone fell to Earth because it is obeying a law makes it a man and even a citizen." We cannot lose sight the idea of a law is just a metaphor.

Nature to me seems more analog and wild with rogue waves of energy flowing in every possible direction. It would be interesting to measure the number of times experimental error occurs or data outliers occur. Maybe there are more exceptions to the laws of physics than there is compliance.

I think unless we are able to predict why experimental errors and data outliers occur, our understanding of the Universe is inaccurate and incomplete. Sure, we will be able to blow up stuff and people by making weapons of mass destruction for war. But there's something fundamental odd about the way the Universe behaves with a particular character.

 

[Polymath257]

Number of believers makes things more plausible. Not sure how you could deny this.

Imagine if I told you I saw a flying saucer last night. Not particularly convincing.

Now imagine you see the news and thousands of people are claiming they saw a flying saucer last night. Makes my claim a bit more plausible, no?

One more example. Think of a court case. One witness is good. But if you have two witnesses, that’s even better. Two witnesses is more plausible than one; it helps corroborate the testimony.

Yes, people believe incorrect things all the time. I’m not saying numerous believers proves that something is true. I am merely saying that it makes something more plausible, more believable. It’s a little sprinkle of evidence.

It only makes something more plausible if they have a legitimate means of obtaining information. For example, suppose 20 people claimed to witness an event, but each was blind, each made a different statement, and there is no other evidence of that event. In addition, there was a wide circulation that such an event occurred. Would the number of 'witnesses' make their claims more plausible?

I don't think so.

The point is that the number of people believing in something only increases the plausibility if they have a legitimate means to know about it. As another example, suppose we had a court case where 20 people said they believed the defendant to be guilty, but none of them had seen the crime being committed nor were they close to the crime when it was committed. Would the number of 'witnesses' increase the plausibility the defendant is guilty?

I don't think so.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not me. I see the Universe and what happens in it as completely insane. I am just amazed by how reality always turns out to be so much stranger than anything I could have ever imagined. Whatever is the driving force is in the Universe creating strange realizations to occur in reality, it's not following simple laws. On the surface it make look orderly, but it's turtles and turtles of rogue waves converging all the way down!

I was referring to evidence for God's existence, I look at it rationally...

The Universe and what happens in it is another ball of wax...
We will not know what reality is until after we die and see what reality actually is.
We can kind of know before we die by reading various accounts, but it is not the same as being there.

 

[Audie]

???

There was an example quoted in the post

View attachment 27733

Well, you either misquoted, or did not.
Which is it?

 

[Audie]

???

There was an example quoted in the post

View attachment 27733

Nothing there even faintly resembling
your fantasy-atheist of post 205.

 

[Falvlun]

It only makes something more plausible if they have a legitimate means of obtaining information. For example, suppose 20 people claimed to witness an event, but each was blind, each made a different statement, and there is no other evidence of that event. In addition, there was a wide circulation that such an event occurred. Would the number of 'witnesses' make their claims more plausible?

I don't think so.

The point is that the number of people believing in something only increases the plausibility if they have a legitimate means to know about it. As another example, suppose we had a court case where 20 people said they believed the defendant to be guilty, but none of them had seen the crime being committed nor were they close to the crime when it was committed. Would the number of 'witnesses' increase the plausibility the defendant is guilty?

I don't think so.

I don’t think that’s how it generally works. The sheer fact of numerous people confirming something makes that thing more plausible.

If it’s just one person, you can easily dismiss it and think of it no more.

But look at what happens when multiple people confirm something— your post. You must consider their testimony and find other reasons to dismiss it.

The sheer numbers made the claim something more plausible that required greater effort to dismiss.

Note: I do think your scenario of witnesses who didn’t actually see anything demonstrates a bit of bias. How do you know theists aren’t genuinely experiencing something?

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, it's a belief.

What you are implying is that you don't believe that people actually believe in God.

You state "1+1=2" as a fact because you actually believe it. If you didn't actually believe it, you wouldn't state it as a fact.

My point is that when you look at why people BELIEVE in God, it is for entirely different reasons than why I believe that 1+1=2.

It can be proven that 1+1=2 in such a way that it is impossible to come to any other conclusion. This can be shown to anyone and they have no choice but to say, "Yes, you are completely right. The proof leaves no room for error. Two is the only possible solution to one plus one. Any other proposed solution is flawed, and that flaw can be demonstrated with clear and undeniable reasoning."

Such a thing can not be done when it comes to the existence of God. We must be careful that we do not start treating any kind of belief as the same kind as religious belief. There are many different kinds of belief, and only one is religious in nature. It's a bright sunny day here, and I believe the sky is blue. But that's because I am faced with undeniable evidence - i've looked at it and seen with my own eyes. But this belief that the sky here is currently blue is not in any way religious in nature.

 

[Tiberius]

FYI: the use of "Gnostic" to describe absolutely anyone who claims knowledge annoys me. The Gnostics were a specific religious movement. Etymology is not definition. Calling anyone who claims to know something "Gnostic" makes no more sense than calling anything that's supposed to be universal "Catholic." It just creates confusion.

Yet when we have the term Agnostic, it's well understood. I'm using the term gnostic (rather than Gnostic, not the lack of capitalization) to mean something which I have clearly defined. If you don't like it, then that's okay, but it doesn't invalidate my point. I'm perfectly happy to use a different word. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable with shnerffly and a-shnerffly atheists?

But anybody who has put some thought into the matter knows that all human knowledge is imperfect... and that the existence of a grocery store is subject to uncertainties even beyond that. Still, even people who realize all this don't go around saying that they're "agnostic" about these sorts of claims.

And yet I am completely gnostic about the existence of the grocery store down the street. I've been there many times. I was there yesterday. I know for a fact that it is there. Sure, it may have burnt down overnight, but that would imply things like loud sirens of firetrucks driving past that simply didn't happen. So the grocery store existing is so likely that I can be certain of it.

Do you regularly assign uncertainty to this sort of thing? When your significant other asks you to pick up some bread and milk on the way home, do you respond with "sure" or "I hope I can?"

You seem to be spending a lot of effort to quibble about this despite the fact that the meaning is clear. In such a case I would say sure, but that is not a guarantee that I definitely will. I could get hit by a car and be taken to hospital with many broken bones, in which case there will be no bread or milk. But such an event is so unlikely to happen that I can treat it as certain that I will be able to get the milk and bread.

Of course, if you know some way to make a promise that will render one invulnerable to things which would prevent the fulfillment of that promise, please let me know.

Wherever you put your personal line on the "certainty scale" where anything above it is certain enough that you don't feel the need to say you're "agnostic," if you call yourself "agnostic" about gods but not about other routine things still subject to uncertainties because of the limits of human knowledge, you're saying to the world that the existence of gods is uncertain to a higher degree than all those other things.

Given that I've gone grocery shopping many times and yet never seen any evidence for God, I doubt the two are very comparable. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, after all.

 

[Tiberius]

1+1=2 is a set of concepts which, being abstractions, have no objective counterpart.

This is clear if you look at any instantiation of it. Before there can be a sheep plus another sheep in your back yard, you have to decide that you're going to count, and that what you're going to count is sheep, and not just any sheep but the sheep in your back yard. Subject and field. Someone must define these before there can be a counting. They aren't part of nature.

And 1+1= 2 need not be true in practical reality. If I take one pint of water and pour it into a 1.5 pint container, and if I take another pint of water and pour it into the same container, 1+1=1.5. So 1+1=2 is only a true generalization in the (wholly conceptual) realm of mathematics (and only there can you require the extra half to be taken into account).

Not sure what point you are trying to make.

And are you assuming that I'd just miss the half pint of water that is spilling all over the place?

 

[Polymath257]

I don’t think that’s how it generally works. The sheer fact of numerous people confirming something makes that thing more plausible.

If it’s just one person, you can easily dismiss it and think of it no more.

But look at what happens when multiple people confirm something— your post. You must consider their testimony and find other reasons to dismiss it.

The sheer numbers made the claim something more plausible that required greater effort to dismiss.

Note: I do think your scenario of witnesses who didn’t actually see anything demonstrates a bit of bias. How do you know theists aren’t genuinely experiencing something?

Why should I assume that they are? Especially when they all give very different descriptions of their experiences?

Let's give a different example. The chemist Dalton (who developed the modern theory of atoms) discovered that he was not able to see things that other people could. In particular, he had what is now known as color blindness. Now, how can someone who is color blind come to the conclusion that there really are colors s/he cannot see? Well, one thing is the number of people who claim to be able to see colors. But much more important is the fact that they give consistent and repeatable results when asked questions about colors. So, one person would be able to say a particular apple is green and another is red. And then another person can come in and give exactly the same answers. This can be repeated with consistent results through any number of people who can see colors.

In contrast, just look at the variety of different views people have about the supernatural and deities. It almost seems that each different person has a different view. Certainly, it is difficult to get agreement except in very rare circumstances. This suggests strongly that people are NOT all seeing the same thing, but instead of something objective, it is something created in their own minds.

The sheer numbers mostly tell that people *want* to believe *something*, but the lack of consistency suggests that none actually see anything.

 

[Polymath257]

My point is that when you look at why people BELIEVE in God, it is for entirely different reasons than why I believe that 1+1=2.

It can be proven that 1+1=2 in such a way that it is impossible to come to any other conclusion. This can be shown to anyone and they have no choice but to say, "Yes, you are completely right. The proof leaves no room for error. Two is the only possible solution to one plus one. Any other proposed solution is flawed, and that flaw can be demonstrated with clear and undeniable reasoning."

Well, the problem is that reasoning depends on assumptions concerning how numbers work and those assumptions may or may not actually apply in the real world.

So, for example, if you take 1 quart of water and add it to one quart of alcohol (ethanol), you will NOT get 2 quarts of the mixture. The simple 1+1=2 does not apply in this case.

Such a thing can not be done when it comes to the existence of God. We must be careful that we do not start treating any kind of belief as the same kind as religious belief. There are many different kinds of belief, and only one is religious in nature. It's a bright sunny day here, and I believe the sky is blue. But that's because I am faced with undeniable evidence - i've looked at it and seen with my own eyes. But this belief that the sky here is currently blue is not in any way religious in nature.

Nothing is undeniable. it is *always* possible you misinterpreted, or that you overlooked some logical possibility, or that some assumptions don't actually hold in the real world, or even that you are a brain in a vat and all is an illusion.

That said, i agree that the *quality* of the evidence for deities is a lot lower than the quality of the evidence for, say, dark matter. One big issue is even defining what it means to be a 'deity' in some objective way.

 

[Willamena]

My point is that when you look at why people BELIEVE in God, it is for entirely different reasons than why I believe that 1+1=2.

It can be proven that 1+1=2 in such a way that it is impossible to come to any other conclusion. This can be shown to anyone and they have no choice but to say, "Yes, you are completely right. The proof leaves no room for error. Two is the only possible solution to one plus one. Any other proposed solution is flawed, and that flaw can be demonstrated with clear and undeniable reasoning."

Such a thing can not be done when it comes to the existence of God. We must be careful that we do not start treating any kind of belief as the same kind as religious belief. There are many different kinds of belief, and only one is religious in nature. It's a bright sunny day here, and I believe the sky is blue. But that's because I am faced with undeniable evidence - i've looked at it and seen with my own eyes. But this belief that the sky here is currently blue is not in any way religious in nature.

So it's true, you do believe that no one actually believes in God.

The quintessential atheist.

 

[Audie]

And they may be correct. On the other hand, they may be delusional.

In theory, yes. But also, in theory, no.

 

[Audie]

So it's true, you do believe that no one actually believes in God.

The quintessential atheist.

Nope