Where should the "I don't know" go?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The question of whether something is true or real often gets framed by the believers in the thing... e.g. monotheists set the question as "does God exist?"

In a situation with no evidence either way, this framing is important because it lends itself to the balance fallacy: when the answer to the question "does God exist?" is "I don't know," there's a (fallacious) implication that both sides have equal merit.

... but here's the thing: with no evidence either way, every question can be answered with "I don't know":

- is the existence of God worth investigating? I don't know.
- is God possible? I don't know.
- is there there the slightest reason to think God might not be impossible? I don't know.

... so which question is a reasonable starting point when we have no information?

 

[Trailblazer]

.. but here's the thing: with no evidence either way, every question can be answered with "I don't know":

- is the existence of God worth investigating? I don't know.
- is God possible? I don't know.
- is there there the slightest reason to think God might not be impossible? I don't know.

... so which question is a reasonable starting point when we have no information?

I think that the reasonable starting point for an atheists would be is God possible?

If the answer to that question is yes, then the next question that would be reasonable to ask is:
is the existence of God worth investigating?

 

[ppp]

I think that the reasonable starting point for an atheists would be is God possible?

Which definition of god? Yours in particular? One of the many, many other definition that exclude your definition of god? A generic creator of the universe? A generic group of creators of the universe? Something else entirely?

 

[amatuerscholar]

The question of whether something is true or real often gets framed by the believers in the thing... e.g. monotheists set the question as "does God exist?"

In a situation with no evidence either way, this framing is important because it lends itself to the balance fallacy: when the answer to the question "does God exist?" is "I don't know," there's a (fallacious) implication that both sides have equal merit.

... but here's the thing: with no evidence either way, every question can be answered with "I don't know":

- is the existence of God worth investigating? I don't know.
- is God possible? I don't know.
- is there there the slightest reason to think God might not be impossible? I don't know.

... so which question is a reasonable starting point when we have no information?

When I started in my Master's program, this was the topic I started on. I think the question, does God exist, to be a terrible question.

While the three questions you provide may all be decent starting points, I think a proper (a proper as opposed to the proper) place to start is a variation of the second option; is God possible? The question I'd suggest starting off with is, can faith in God be rationale? Now, if the affirmative can be answered, then we really get the same answer, which would be, yes, God is possible.

It doesn't change the overall answer of I don't know though.

 

[Madsaac]

The question of whether something is true or real often gets framed by the believers in the thing... e.g. monotheists set the question as "does God exist?"

In a situation with no evidence either way, this framing is important because it lends itself to the balance fallacy: when the answer to the question "does God exist?" is "I don't know," there's a (fallacious) implication that both sides have equal merit.

... but here's the thing: with no evidence either way, every question can be answered with "I don't know":

- is the existence of God worth investigating? I don't know.
- is God possible? I don't know.
- is there there the slightest reason to think God might not be impossible? I don't know.

... so which question is a reasonable starting point when we have no information?

Maybe the definition of god is relevant?

Each question could be a reasonable starting point, it depends on the audience.

And all questions staring points are the same but with a different end point. That being, there is a spectrum of possibilities from the starting point of ‘I don’t know’ to highly unlikely to possibly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Which definition of god? Yours in particular? One of the many, many other definition that exclude your definition of god? A generic creator of the universe? A generic group of creators of the universe? Something else entirely?

I think it's certainly the case that the first question that gets an "I don't know" is "what do you mean by 'God'?"

 

[Trailblazer]

Which definition of god? Yours in particular? One of the many, many other definition that exclude your definition of god? A generic creator of the universe? A generic group of creators of the universe? Something else entirely?

As a starting point, a creator of the universe, nothing specific.

 

[Secret Chief]

which question is a reasonable starting point when we have no information?

I don't know.

 

[Balthazzar]

The question of whether something is true or real often gets framed by the believers in the thing... e.g. monotheists set the question as "does God exist?"

In a situation with no evidence either way, this framing is important because it lends itself to the balance fallacy: when the answer to the question "does God exist?" is "I don't know," there's a (fallacious) implication that both sides have equal merit.

... but here's the thing: with no evidence either way, every question can be answered with "I don't know":

- is the existence of God worth investigating? I don't know.
- is God possible? I don't know.
- is there there the slightest reason to think God might not be impossible? I don't know.

... so which question is a reasonable starting point when we have no information?

I don't know would be the default until introduced to concepts, which then motivate our course in life through our active reasoning and investigation into higher learning.

Is the existence of the universe worth investigating?
Is the universe possible?
Is there reason to think the universe might not be possible?

From this, we derive our answers, if we so choose to search these matters out.

If not, I don't know will always be left to its own device or vice, however to we choose to view it. Maybe both are present in the concept of vice. .. that we end up bound to our choice either way.

 

[ppp]

As a starting point, a creator of the universe, nothing specific.

If science progresses so that a human from this universe figures out how to create a hot expanding stable singularity with a net energy of zero (and nothing else) outside the bounds of this universe, is she a god? Or is she just a human who created a universe?

 

[Trailblazer]

If science progresses so that a human from this universe figures out how to create a hot expanding stable singularity with a net energy of zero (and nothing else) outside the bounds of this universe, is she a god? Or is she just a human who created a universe?

No, that would not be God. it would only be a person who created something outside the bounds of this universe.

I said creator is a starting point. God is more than a creator.

 

[ppp]

No, that would not be God. it would only be a person who created something outside the bounds of this universe.

Then in answer to your question.

I think that the reasonable starting point for an atheists would be is God possible?

I don't know.

 

[ppp]

I think that the reasonable starting point for an atheists would be is God possible?

Should I be convinced that any one knows, or is even capable of knowing if a god is possible? And if so, Why?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My take on it: we start with what we have in common and build from there.

For instance, "does God exist?" assumes that God is possible, so if there's anyone in the debate/discussion who doesn't accept that God is possible, it's not a good starting point.

In a lot of conversations, this will mean that the first question will be something like "is 'God' a coherent concept?" or "is there any way that God might be possible?"

 

[Quintessence]

I'm not sure I understand. All human words - and it genuinely doesn't matter what the word we're talking about here - points at something. This means the human can experience whatever it was the word is pointing at in some capacity, and it exists in some capacity. If the word pointed at nothing, we could have no word for it at all; all words reference something, and they all point at something that exists.

The correct questions to ask are - what is this word pointing to, and in what fashion do humans experience it? That's never an "I don't know" if you do your research. Doesn't matter if the word is "god" or "pencil" or "emotion" or "supplant."

 

[LuisDantas]

As a starting point, a creator of the universe, nothing specific.

That is a heavy limitation that affects very strongly that theism even means.

 

[an anarchist]

@Trailblazer
@ppp
Do we have to do semantics with the word “God” every time it is used? I think everyone has a good idea of what @Trailblazer means when she says “God”.

 

[Trailblazer]

Should I be convinced that any one knows, or is even capable of knowing if a god is possible? And if so, Why?

I am not saying that God is, I am only saying that God is possible. Can you give me a reason why God would be impossible?

 

[Trailblazer]

That is a heavy limitation that affects very strongly that theism even means.

Why is it a heavy limitation?

 

[ppp]

@Trailblazer
@ppp
Do we have to do semantics with the word “God” every time it is used? I think everyone has a good idea of what @Trailblazer means when she says “God”.
View attachment 97810

First, try not to smear what people say together as though we are not individuals. It's a goober move.

Second, we don't have to drill down into the word god every time that the word is used. When @Trailblazer is talking bout her religious beliefs, or the religious beliefs of someone else specifically, then I roll with the context. But when she is talking to someone who does not start with a specific definition of god, then yes, clarification is needed. Because religionists tend to forget, sometimes accidentally and sometimes purpose, that when questioning a on religious person, it is dishonest to ask a generic god questions with underlying specific god assumptions.