To any Atheists, I Have a Few Scenarios for you to Look At.

[Magic Man]

I don't pretend to understand the exact nature of what God. I don't think something as incomprehensible as that can be accurately defined with a label. Taoism comes to mind here.

Why am I not surprised?

Person 1: I believe in God.
Person 2: Cool, what is God?
Person 1: I don't know.
Person 2: ...

 

[Vile Atheist]

^ Basically sums up my sentiments on the issue.

 

[DarkSun]

How can I define something I don't understand? It's not as if I'm deliberately being vague. It's just that I don't really know what exact attributes God has.

 

[DarkSun]

Yes you are wrong.

I do not believe any of the Gods thus far proposed to me by theists and defined adequately enough to form an opinion exist. The exception is those theists - like Rune Wolf - who define their "God" as "everything that exists", or "the universe", or "love", etc.

If you go ahead and define your god for me I can tell you whether or not I believe it exists.

I think you'll find that if you start listening to the atheists on RF you'll find a large majority view the question of God/s from exactly this perspective, and that only a tiny minority venture onto the shaky ground of claiming "God" (whose?) "probably" (according to what model of probability?) doesn't "exist" (where?)

Okay. Semantics aside, I don't think this really goes against what I'm saying.

You're not believing because there is insufficient evidence for belief, right? Well, what if we turned it the other way around and said that people are justified in believing because there is insufficient evidence for disbelief? It works both ways, because it's not as if there's any proof either way.

Again, if you disagree, feel free to cite the relevant journal article.

 

[dogsgod]

Okay. Semantics aside, I don't think this really goes against what I'm saying.

You're not believing because there is insufficient evidence for belief, right? Well, what if we turned it the other way around and said that people are justified in believing because there is insufficient evidence for disbelief? It works both ways, because it's not as if there's any proof either way.

Again, if you disagree, feel free to cite the relevant journal article.

What does evidence for the non existence of something going to look like? Only ignorant people feel justified in believing because there is insufficient evidence for disbelief. There is no such thing as evidence for disbelief, it simply doesn't exist.

 

[Commoner]

Okay. Semantics aside, I don't think this really goes against what I'm saying.

You're not believing because there is insufficient evidence for belief, right? Well, what if we turned it the other way around and said that people are justified in believing because there is insufficient evidence for disbelief? It works both ways, because it's not as if there's any proof either way.

Again, if you disagree, feel free to cite the relevant journal article.

Ok, I think you've come full circle again and you still don't understand either the atheistic or the skeptical position. I'm beginning to think you might not be conscious, do you think that's possible?

Wake up! Wake up DS! Is there anyody in there? :no:

That would be a bit like citing an article on the subject of cows not being aliens. Feel free to cite a peer-reviewed article supporting your point of view. Please, just do it!

 

[Vile Atheist]

What does evidence for the non existence of something going to look like? Only ignorant people feel justified in believing because there is insufficient evidence for disbelief. There is no such thing as evidence for disbelief, it simply doesn't exist.

Technically you can have evidence for the non-existence of God. VERY technically. But it requires one thing:

God must be completely defined.

Once God is defined, its parameters can be found and we can have a finite list of possibilities. This is because a definition is a specific set of attributes. If God as defined as X, God cannot be not X.

So now we have a finite list of possibilities of how God could have created the universe and interact in our lives, if at all. We begin the process of elimination. Each possibility we eliminate is evidence for the non-existence of God. Once all possibilities are eliminated, we have proof that a God with that particular definition does not exist.

This is precisely why people refuse to define their God and call it a "mystery". It makes it really easy to tear down their God model.

Until a theist defines their God model completely and presents evidence for their God model (i.e. What does their God model predict and how does the current state of the universe fit those predictions?), the position of a disbelief in the general term "God", however it may be defined, is rational.

Until someone defines their God completely, they cannot begin to present evidence for it simply because if you can't define what you are setting out to prove, then how can you expect anyone to accept your evidence?

Just my $0.02

 

[Vile Atheist]

To add further, because of this persistent refusal to define Gods, this is why atheists insist on generalizing to the Abrahamic God. It's the one we're all familiar with and a theist's God model is probably somewhat close to it, more likely it IS the Abrahamic God.

 

[Smoke]

I love mball in this thread hahaha

Mball is the reason I keep coming back to it.

 

[Smoke]

And yes, if you want to go to that extreme, it is essentially the same as saying: "Belief in the tooth fairy is equally justified to belief in the Easter Bunny." Yes. It sounds ludicrous to us.

No, that's not ludicrous. Belief in the Tooth Fairy and belief in the Easter Bunny really are equally justified. However, your argument about God applies equally well to the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. You have, whether intentionally or not, basically said that believing in God is about the same as believing in the Tooth Fairy, and then proceeded to defend the notion of belief in the Tooth Fairy as it any rational adult anywhere could sustain such a belief. Frankly, I don't think it's a line of argument most theists would care to pursue.

How can I define something I don't understand? It's not as if I'm deliberately being vague. It's just that I don't really know what exact attributes God has.

Do you know approximately what attributes God has? Do you have any idea at all what attributes God has? When you say you believe in God, does that actually mean anything? That is, does it mean that there is anything in particular that you believe in, or are you just calling your vague uncertainty about reality a belief in God?

 

[dogsgod]

Technically you can have evidence for the non-existence of God. VERY technically. But it requires one thing:

God must be completely defined.

Once God is defined, its parameters can be found and we can have a finite list of possibilities. This is because a definition is a specific set of attributes. If God as defined as X, God cannot be not X.

So now we have a finite list of possibilities of how God could have created the universe and interact in our lives, if at all. We begin the process of elimination. Each possibility we eliminate is evidence for the non-existence of God. Once all possibilities are eliminated, we have proof that a God with that particular definition does not exist.

This is precisely why people refuse to define their God and call it a "mystery". It makes it really easy to tear down their God model.

Until a theist defines their God model completely and presents evidence for their God model (i.e. What does their God model predict and how does the current state of the universe fit those predictions?), the position of a disbelief in the general term "God", however it may be defined, is rational.

Until someone defines their God completely, they cannot begin to present evidence for it simply because if you can't define what you are setting out to prove, then how can you expect anyone to accept your evidence?

Just my $0.02

Providing a natural explanation for lightning which in turn rules out an angry God is one thing, but consider this; I could state that I don't have a stash of cash (one million dollars) hidden somewhere, but how could I possibly prove that I don't? What would the evidence for this nonexistent cash look like? The evidence doesn't exist. To simply believe that I do have a hidden stash without a shred of evidence to support that belief, and to consider that it's just as valid a belief because there is no evidence for disbelief is just plain ignorant. In real life ignorant people fell for Bush's notion that Saddam Hussein had to prove that he did not have WMDs. It was impossible for Hussein to prove that he did not have them. However, there's no shortage of ignorant people, the Bush supporters proved that on a regular basis.

 

[Magic Man]

How can I define something I don't understand?

How can you believe something exists when you don't even know what it is?

It's not as if I'm deliberately being vague. It's just that I don't really know what exact attributes God has.

Then what makes you believe God exists?

 

[Magic Man]

Mball is the reason I keep coming back to it.

Aw, shucks, guys. :blushes:

 

[Cobblestones]

Originally Posted by DarkSun
How can I define something I don't understand? It's not as if I'm deliberately being vague. It's just that I don't really know what exact attributes God has.

Do you know approximately what attributes God has? Do you have any idea at all what attributes God has? When you say you believe in God, does that actually mean anything? That is, does it mean that there is anything in particular that you believe in, or are you just calling your vague uncertainty about reality a belief in God?

That's a good question. For all we know, god could be the two year old child of some hyper-intelligent multi-dimensional being who has been told not to create universes but keeps on doing it anyways.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Providing a natural explanation for lightning which in turn rules out an angry God is one thing, but consider this; I could state that I don't have a stash of cash (one million dollars) hidden somewhere, but how could I possibly prove that I don't? What would the evidence for this nonexistent cash look like? The evidence doesn't exist. To simply believe that I do have a hidden stash without a shred of evidence to support that belief, and to consider that it's just as valid a belief because there is no evidence for disbelief is just plain ignorant. In real life ignorant people fell for Bush's notion that Saddam Hussein had to prove that he did not have WMDs. It was impossible for Hussein to prove that he did not have them. However, there's no shortage of ignorant people, the Bush supporters proved that on a regular basis.

Remember, the goal is to provide evidence, not prove. But again, this relies on the person defining their God. I'll refer to your particular example:

You've set parameters. One million dollars.

Could you even acquire this large sum? What kind of job do you have? Do you work at McDonalds? As a fry cook or are you the CEO? If you are a mere fry cook (or other low-paying job) do you know anyone with possession of one million dollars? If so, what would their motives be for giving it to you?

Realistically, the stash is hidden somewhere on Earth. This very much reduces the search area from "somewhere". What would your motive be for stashing it somewhere? To hide it from someone else? Because you're a loon?

We can create a probability density distribution map of where the money could be based on your geographic location (i.e. Say you live in Spain, it is unlikely the money would be found in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, but very likely to be found in Spain which could aid in searching for it).

These are all questions with definitive answers. Answers that will eliminate possibilities that will determine whether or not you actually have a stash of money hidden somewhere. It's an a** backwards way of going about proving it true or false, but assuming you know "ALL" possibilities you can "prove" the negative, provided they are testable and falsifiable.

It's certainly possible for someone's God to be testable and falsifiable. But that depends on how they define it, which is central to the issue. Not all definitions of God can have the proven negative. And even more cannot even have evidence for the negative. But some probably can because the definition is so variable.

And I agree with you that anyone who takes the positive claim on the grounds that the negative is yet unproven is damn irrational. The tooth fairy is still yet unproven. Equal evidence for and against. Shall I knock out DarkSun's teeth so he can put it under his pillow and make a few bucks ? After all, his belief in the tooth fairy is just as justified as my non-belief in the tooth fairy.

And if he claims to have non-belief in the tooth-fairy, he'll have to explain the variation on his stances. Why the special spot for "God" (that he is reluctant to define)?

 

[dogsgod]

I wouldn't waste my time trying to prove a negative no matter how well defined the perimeters are as I demonstrated, and I don't care how foolish Dark Sun wants to be, if he wants to formulate a belief for whatever nonsense can't be proven to not exist, than he can play the fool all he wants.

 

[DarkSun]

I wouldn't waste my time trying to prove a negative no matter how well defined the perimeters are as I demonstrated, and I don't care how foolish Dark Sun wants to be, if he wants to formulate a belief for whatever nonsense can't be proven to not exist, than he can play the fool all he wants.

Can you honestly not see that my beliefs have nothing to do with the argument at all?

 

[DarkSun]

What does evidence for the non existence of something going to look like? Only ignorant people feel justified in believing because there is insufficient evidence for disbelief. There is no such thing as evidence for disbelief, it simply doesn't exist.

What does evidence for the non-existence of black swans look like? Oh. Wait. Hang on. Even though they didn't have any evidence in the 1600s, they still existed. So it looks like a lack of evidence for something is not proof against something. Why you keep using the lack of evidence as a reason not to believe is beyond me. If you really want to say something based on the available evidence, then it would be better to say that there is no proof either way (because there isn't).

Better yet... why am I still posting?

Ok, I think you've come full circle again and you still don't understand either the atheistic or the skeptical position. I'm beginning to think you might not be conscious, do you think that's possible?

Wake up! Wake up DS! Is there anyody in there? :no:

That would be a bit like citing an article on the subject of cows not being aliens. Feel free to cite a peer-reviewed article supporting your point of view. Please, just do it!

I can't, that's the point.


And is it so much to ask that people lose the belligerent, sarcastic attitude?

 

[Commoner]

So it looks like a lack of evidence for something is not proof against something. Why you keep using the lack of evidence as a reason not to believe is beyond me. If you really want to say something based on the available evidence, then it would be better to say that there is no proof either way (because there isn't).

Not proof, DS - the lack of evidence is evidence, not proof. How could you argue it's not evidence? Just as the lack of a certain type of side effects for a certain medicine (as shown in a study/through usage...) is evidence that the medicine does not cause such side effects, why wouldn't the lack of evidence for something be evidence against it?

 

[DarkSun]

No, that's not ludicrous. Belief in the Tooth Fairy and belief in the Easter Bunny really are equally justified. However, your argument about God applies equally well to the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. You have, whether intentionally or not, basically said that believing in God is about the same as believing in the Tooth Fairy, and then proceeded to defend the notion of belief in the Tooth Fairy as it any rational adult anywhere could sustain such a belief. Frankly, I don't think it's a line of argument most theists would care to pursue.

The only difference between belief in the tooth fairy and belief in God, is that people actually say that the tooth fairy is a human invention. However, this is not the case for God. People actually do believe God exists. But if this were not the case, and all people claimed that the tooth fairy was actually real... and if they had a plausible reason, like their teeth disappearing, or feeling something more than what the non-existence of the tooth fairy explains... then yes. Belief in the tooth fairy, like disbelief in the tooth fairy, would be based on whatever makes sense internally to you or I. In that sense, we would all be equally justified.

Do you know approximately what attributes God has? Do you have any idea at all what attributes God has? When you say you believe in God, does that actually mean anything? That is, does it mean that there is anything in particular that you believe in, or are you just calling your vague uncertainty about reality a belief in God?

The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of all true art and science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery - even if mixed with fear - that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity; in this sense, and, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.

I agree with this quote to an extent. I'd just go one step further and say that God is the architect of the universe. I don't claim to know anything else... how would I know? And I'm willing to bet that when each person looks upon the universe, they are seeing the same God, the same sense of mystery in the world, but just from a different perspective.

As clich`e as it sounds, it's kind of like a whole bunch of different people looking at the same rose from different angles. One person might be colour blind and see a blue rose, while another person perceives a red rose. One person might be staring from the top down onto the rose. Another person might be staring at it vaguely through a microscope. But it's still the same rose. Heck, some people might not even see a rose there - and they'd claim that there's no evidence in order for them to believe in such a thing. But in the end, does it really matter at all, when it all comes down to the subjectivity of personal opinion anyway?