Hi Poly, good on you for having a look at this post. I may put a response in as a few posts to cover everything you have shared here are your view. Some comments provided before for your consideration.
One BIG problem with this is your assumption that belief or disbelief is a choice. To me, that is simply not the case. I believe if I am convinced by the evidence for. I disbelieve if I am convinced by the evidence against, and I lack belief if I am not convinced either way.
There is no problem that I can see here and there is no assumtion being made in this section of the post that I can see here. What assumtions are you talking about? This section is simply showing that the lack of belief simply means an abesence of a belief in anything (non committment to a belief). It is only stating after explaining the above that
If "lack of belief" means that a person chooses not to make an intellectual commitment for or against a position based on the information provided to them they remain intellectually neutral and opened one way or another. They have therefore not made up their minds. You may need to re-read this section of the post as it is
not saying what you are suggesting it is. Yet it is showing why what you have posted here is not true. The lack of belief simply means an abesence of a belief in anything and leads to neutrality in belief. If you lack of belief has lead you to take a position on something then it is no more neutral and no more lack of belief as your belief has moved to a position of belief in something for or against. A lack of belief therefore in God therefore is simply a neutral position that someone does not know if there is a God or not a God. It is a state of ignoreance in relation to God and wheather he exists of does not exist.
3rdAngel wrote: However, complete neutrality about a concept is impossible since all concepts have an effect upon the hearer and illicit a response whether it be emotional and/or intellectual. Once you have been exposed to a concept, you categorize it as: True, False, Ridiculous, Unsure, etc., but you do not return to a complete mental neutrality or state of ignorance.
Your response...
And there are too many mutually inconsistent God concepts to make a judgement on all of them. For example, it is possible that there is a race of high dimensional beings that have learned how to make universes and our universe was made by for a high school art project and forgotten. There is no way to prove that one way or the other.
Not sure how this section of your post relates to what you are quoting from here but yes you are correct in saying there are many perceptions of what God is as there are many religions about God. That being said. This is not an argument for no God or that God does not exist. This was actually one of the questions from the OP if I remember 4. If there is a God obviously not all religions can be correct as many are contradictory to each other. How would one go about finding what is the correct one?
3rdAngel wrote: We do not "lack belief" in invisible pink unicorns. That is, we do not hold a mentally neutral position about the concept. We make a decision to categorize it as: True, False, Ridiculous, Unsure, etc., based upon our scope of knowledge and experience.
Your response...
Since the burden of proof is on the positive existence statement, the default position shifts to non-existence. That doesn't mean you actually believe in non-existence, but simply that it is more likely than the alternative.
The burden of proof is only on the positive existence statement if there is neutrality of belief on the other side of the fence. If there is no neutrality on both sides as shown above when being exposed to a concept then burden of proof is on both side. The default position is not nonexistence in the lack of belief. The default position in lack of belief is
I do not know if God exists or if God does not exist. This is not the position of an Athiest or the definition of one.
3rdAngel wrote:To the extent that this categorization occurs, belief or disbelief is associated with it. If True, then positive belief is applied. If False, then disbelief (the positive belief that it is false) is applied. If Ridiculous, then disbelief (the positive belief that it is false) is applied. If Unsure, then belief and disbelief are pending with either as the outcome. This is because we realize that belief in the concept (acceptance) is possible as also is disbelief (rejection)--depending on further information and analysis. Being unsure about something is as close to "lack of belief" as one can logically get, but even this is a categorization with pending commitment to belief or disbelief. Actions reflect belief. We act based upon what we do believe--not upon what we do not believe. In other words, I do something because I believe something--not because I don't believe something. If I don't believe my house is on fire, then I don't do anything; but if believe it is, I get out. In other words, if I believe my house is not on fire, then I don't need to get up and get out. It is not lack of belief that moves us but belief.
Your response..
OK, I fundamentally disagree with this analysis. For example, there is a proposed subatomic particle called the axion. It is one of the candidates for dark matter. Do I believe such particles exist? No. Do I disbelieve such particles exist? No. I wouldn't even say I am unsure such particles exist: there simply isn't any evidence they exist and the burden of proof is on the ones claiming they exist. When it comes to God, you first have to distinguish between the thousands of different God concepts humans have come up with. I certainly do not know all of them. Then you have to look at the evidence and logic presented and see if it is conclusive or even shifts the likelihood. In particular, are there simpler, natural explanations for the same phenomena that are based on what we have previously demonstrated and explain the phenomena better? If so, then the model involving God is reduced in likelihood in favor of the natural explanation. It doesn't *disprove* the existence of a God, but it certainly *does* negate the proposed evidence.
I believe you have simply disregarded the previous sections of the post you are responding to that has already addressed lack of believe as being
neutrality in belief. No decision one way or another. What your not considering in the post shown earlier is that once someone is exposed to a concept we categorise a concept as: True, False, Ridiculous, Unsure, etc., based upon our scope of knowledge and experience. One way or another what you have said here that I believe is correct is that no one can prove God does not exist. If your taking the stance that you cannot believe that God exists until you have been provided evidence that God exists then to me that just means your no longer remained in a neutral position in regards to God and the existence of God as your default position is that you will not believe in God until you see evidence of God. This is no longer a neutral position of not knowing if there is a God or not a God.
3rdAngel wrote: I lack belief in concepts I am unaware of. Therefore, I do not and cannot act based upon them since I am unaware of them. I can only act or not act based upon concepts I am aware of. If I believe there are invisible pink unicorns, I would act accordingly and either defend their existence or behave in a manner consistent with the belief that they exist. If I believe there are no such things as invisible pink unicorns, I may or may not defend my position depending on the circumstances. But, I do not promote their non-existence since it is not necessary to do so any more than it is necessary to promote the assertion that there is no ice cream factory on Jupiter.
Your response...
And I see deities in the same category as ice cream factories on Jupiter or invisible pink unicorns.
Thankyou, here you have just proven the point of this post. So you have moved from a
position of neutrality (lack of belief) of not knowing if there is a God or not a God to the category of ridiculous and have just proven the point of this enture post. You are no more neutral, you no longer have a lack of belief. You believe there is no God and do not believe in the existence of God.
To be continued...
