Atheism vs. Religion Dead Horse Beating Round 473!

Remove all ads!

Absolutely not because no middle ground can exist -- either you believe or you do not. Ambivilance is not middle ground, it is simply a lack of conviction. If a believer wishes to convince a non-believer of the existence of God then he or she must provide an adequate argument to support that claim. The opposite is also true. Thus far neither side has been successful.

The burden of proof simply lies with the person wanting to prove the point.

 

Yes, either you believe that god exists or you believe that god does not exist. Or, you believe neither - in other words, you claim no knowledge of one or the other, which is of course the middle ground (and which I don't think is quite the same as ambivalence).

If you believe neither or 'don't know,' you're not positing a position and thus have no obligation to sustain any. You can demand proof that god exists, and you can demand proof that god doesn't exist, but you can't demand proof for uncertainty. The person who doesn't know hasn't claimed anything.

 

And therein lies the crux of the whole argument. An athiest does not "believe that god does not exist"; that signifies a belief system which the athiests on the boards have explicitly stated over and over again that we do not have.

But that aside, the belief in something that cannot be proven versus non-belief in something that cannot be proven are not polar opposites and the middle ground cannot be easily defined. Certainly not by the simple statement you presented since it does not adequately represent the feelings of both sides of the argument -- you are only presenting one side's interpretation of the argument. It was a reasonable attempt, though.

 

I think functionally you agree with Gaear and I (that either extreme must prove their point), but I would point out that the position of ignorance is very strong in this topic. There are some wonderfully reasoned philosophical arguements supporing it. I think this is probably the only field I know of where that is true, but it is.

And yet it is a position that has repeatedly been provided and defended by the atheists on these boards. I don't know your particular position on the issue, T2, but others have quite explicitly said they believe that gods don't exist. Further, since both extremes and a middle ground exist, it is useful to distinguish between them, which suggests three distinct, non-overlapping terms. In the vernacular, that would be theist, agnostic, and atheist. In technichal language, that may be strong theist, agnostic whatever, and strong atheist.

 

Any person who states "god does not exist" is advocating a position that requires a defense. They are claiming knowledge that must be based on evidence in order for it to be compelling in a rational sense. The fact that it cannot be proven that god does not exist means that the person advocating that stance, if they continue to do so, thinks it's so without evidence. In other words, they believe. To believe in something is to think it is so without there being evidence for it. This is also known as having faith, and it's commonly associated with religion but is no less true for people believing in something non-religious.

An agnostic on the other hand, or one occupying the middle ground, would state only that they don't think god exists, because they have seen no evidence of him. They would not also presume to state categorically that god does not exist because they would recognize that the information available to them (presumably limited to evidence of the senses) is not sufficient to state that for a certainty. They could comfortably say only that that they have not seen any evidence for it, not that they are in possession of all knowledge regarding the matter and have come to the conclusion that the thing is not so.

I have admittedly not read this thread in its entirety (the prospect is quite daunting if you haven't been following since the beginning ), but I find it ironic that in the pages I have read, the NOG side is not advocating for the existence of god, while the other side does seem to be advocating for the non-existence of god.

If I'm not mistaken, faith (in the Christian context) doesn't seek to prove anything to anybody. NOG (if I may presume to paraphrase my opinion) is not saying "there is a god and you must agree with me!" despite the fact that he does believe. His belief is basically irrelevent to the discussion, as it is freely admitted that it is simply a belief. He is not arguing for the scientifically demonstrable existence of god. He is saying, however, that there is no compelling rational evidence to support the claim that there is no god, which seems to be how it's being put by the other side. I would have no problem with that side if it were simply admitted that it's a belief as well.

 

And once again neither side has been successful. QED

I think the most frustrating part of this argument to me has been the staunch refusal of the "theists" to accept the definition of atheism that the atheists have given themselves. This permeates beyond these boards. I have no need to defend my position because I simply don't care if you believe in god or not. My arguments have been about the idiotic labels that are being placed on the atheists and the whole 'organized atheist movement' thing.

To require "proof" of non-existance of an entity where there is absolutely no proof of existance is rather laughable. The faithful constantly say, 'prove God doesn't exist' yet refuse to acknowledge the total, complete, absolute absence of any smidgen of proof that god exists is actually evidence that perhaps ... just perhaps ... the entire god thing may have been fabricated to begin with.

 

I saw this earlier, but didn't bother to respond to it. Now, I feel like it, so here it is:

Let's see how many sources we can list:
Money, all forms of possession, love, marriage, friendship, pride (good and bad), jealousy, belief (supported by evidence or not), camaraderie, simple differences of opinion... I'm sure there's more. If you want to remove all those, even assuming humanity could survive (maybe possession could be worked out by perfect communism), life would be peaceful, dull, meaningless, and there'd probably be a lot more suicides. Good luck with that.

---------- Added 0 hours, 6 minutes and 35 seconds later... ----------

On these boards, I'm only trying to use a functional term that doesn't have unnecessary overlap. The self-avowed atheists seem intent on including as many people in their group as possible. There was debate about the 'organizational level' of atheist subsets, but I think all-in-all that's been resolved with the 'slim, but growing' answer.

Every time I have seen a theist cry 'prove there is no god', it has been in response to an atheist cry 'prove there is a god'. On the contrary to what you have said, I see theists admitting they have no proof all the time. It isn't valid to say the whole thing was fabricated simply because the historical evidence doesn't bear it out. Evidence of substantial belief in Jerusalem just two years after the death of Jesus exists. Such belief wouldn't be feasible there if it directly contradicted the known recent history. That doesn't mean the belief is true, just that it is highly unlikely that any of the historical claims are false.

 

Well, I’ll admit that I haven’t bother to slog through the last several pages of this thread, so what I’m posting might have been said before, but isn’t a theist’s response to “show me proof” that God exists often something like “I have proof that is sufficient for me, but I fully acknowledge that it may not be sufficient for you”?

I’m an agnostic who leans towards atheism , or as Gaear put it, I “don't think god exists, because [ I] have seen no evidence of him. [ I] would not also presume to state categorically that god does not exist because [ I] would recognize that the information available to [me] (presumably limited to evidence of the senses) is not sufficient to state that for a certainty.”

The problem I have with requiring an atheist to prove the non-existence of God is that you can’t prove the non existence of anything; the best you can do is infer it due to the lack of evidence of that particular thing. In the case of God, I think the inference is easy, but not conclusive.

Lastly, as to whether atheism is a belief, I’m somewhat on the fence, but I think I lean towards the idea that it is, at least insofar as an atheist might say that gods don’t exist. The reason I say that is simply due to the number of people who do believe in a god – they must have some reason for their belief. I started to type more to try to elaborate on that, but it became a jumbled mess, so I’ll just leave it at that.

 

No doubt because it's impossible to prove either claim. Unfortunately for the atheists in this thread, the theists (in this thread) have not been making the claim that there is an objectively demonstrable god, which gives more credibility to their position. The atheists are the ones making the unsupportable assertion by saying "there is no god."

Unfortunately again, the theists aren't demanding this proof in general, only in response to the assertion that there is no god. It's altogether reasonable to ask for the evidence when such a claim is made. If you feel the claim can't be supported, you shouldn't make it, not cling to the notion that you're not obligated to sustain your claims.

I'm not sure if you've stated "there is no god" yourself, but if you have, you absolutely do have a need to defend your position if you expect anybody to take you seriously.

This is an excellent reason why no rational person should make that claim. It's unsupportable.

 

Iirc atheists say there is no evidence that God exists, thus they conclude there is no God i.e. in making the claim they already have brought forth the evidence that supports their conclusion - that there is no evidence for God's existence and that they thus don't believe in God.

The deists saying that they believe in God's existence, and demand the others to disprove their claim? Who's being reasonable here?

T2 summed it up admirably, and his point is obviously lost on you, so just read it again:

 

Gaear, I can state whatever I want, whenever I want. I can believe however I choose to believe. The only time any 'proof' is required is if I am trying to convince someone to join me -- which I could really give a rat's ass if anyone joins me in my non-belief. If you think I care whether or not anyone takes me seriously you really haven't read many of my posts.

You also seem to fail to realize that the claim "there is a God" (or its related "I believe in God") is even more unsupportable than the claim "there is no God" (and its related "I do not believe in God"). No faith is required for non-belief ... only ... lack of belief. Evidence, or lack thereof, tends to support the null set.

Ragusa, logic is best left out of these arguments. In fact I believe it is expressly prohibited on page three of this thread.

 

I am going to fall back on the age old "invisible pink unicorns behind the moon" argument. Gaer, do you believe there are invisible pink unicorns behind the moon? If not you need to prove it or your claim that there are none is as valid as my claim that they are there and they are plentyful.

 

Actually, disproving something is much easier in science than proving it. The issue is that the God proposition is not a scientific one (i.e. there are no standard predictions that can be falsifiable). The other problem is that, generally, no evidence other than scientific evidence is considered. There's a great deal of circumstantial evidence for God but, as is the nature of circumstantial evidence, it may all just be coincidence.

I think the issue here is the need to define 'belief'. Most atheists I've talked to it object to being classified as a beleif because they lump beliefs in with unproven, unjustifiable, voodoo claims. Theists believe, atheists... umm, logic? They see their position as one that is defensible, and the theist position as indefensible, thus they bristle at the two being lumped together.

The typcial definition of a belief, though, is something like 'a proposition or claim held as true'. The claim that there are no gods (so long as that is the atheism you're talking about) is a claim that they hold as true, so they have a belief. Such beliefs may be entirely justifiable, or entirely unjustifiable, but they're still beliefs.

Unfortunately, that logic is pattently bad. The claim that a lack of proof is proof of a lack is unsuportable by any rationality. At best, it's an extreme case of inductive reasoning (which is already iffy). At worst, it's an appeal to ignorance.

Find me one.

This is the logical flaw (yes, I did invoke logic). The claim that gods do not exist is not a null set and does require faith. A null set refuses to make any claims. The claim that there are no gods is unprovable, yet still subject to proof. Again, the analogy of aliens is apt. If I were to claim, absolutely, with certainty, that no life exists anywhere outside of our planet (and things we've sent from it), I would be asked for proof in any scientific circle and most non-scientific circles. That's because it's not a null set.

1.) Logical impossibility. If it's invisible, it can't be pink.

2.) See my discussion with Dr. Scepticus about inductive reasoning. By your logic, we shouldn't believe the Sun runs on fusion, because it can't be absolutely proven. We can only say that the products of the Sun's action look like what we would expect to see from fusion. It could be semi-contained antimatter, or some strange force producing massive magnetic flux, or even a miniature black hole. Fusion is much simpler and more likely, though.

 

I think that's a bit of a simplification of the reasoning involved - or at least my reasoning. Keep in mind that I'm a weak atheist though, and so I'm not making an absolute claim.

As a strong agnostic, I think there's no way god's existence or non-existence can be proven by any means. This differs in my thinking regarding extra-terrestrial life, in that I think at some future point, we may get some proof (in regards to non-intelligent life, that could even happen in our lifetime, in our own solar system). However, just like anything else where any means of proof or disproof are completely unattainable, I live my life as if such things do not exist, which is an assumption, but not an irrational one.

 

Not an irrational assumption by any means, but no more rational than the counter: assuming they do exist somewhere. That is my point, and I think you'll agree with it.

As for the 'there's no evidence' claim, my reasoning is thus:

1.) Anything that has a beginning has a cause. (cause&effect, but allows for an eternal)
2.) The universe has a beginning. (science has proven this)
3.) The univers has a cause. (personal or mechanical)

From this, we can nail down three general possibilities:
1.) Our universe is designed. Unique or not, this strongly implies a deity.

2.) Our universe is unique, but a product of random chance. The Anthropic Principle* and what I'll tentatively call the Anthropic Discovery Principle** demonstrate that our universe, if chance, is highly unlikely (on a scale of multiple exponentials).

3.) Our universe is a product of chance, along with a multitude, possibly infinite number, of other universes. Here, the Anthropic Principle and the Anthropic Discovery Principle are moot. Given enough repetitions, every possibility, no matter how unlikely, becomes a certainty. In this case, we're just one of the lucky universes (of a possible many) who have the right variables.

The first assumes an unproven Divine. The third assumes an unproven Multiverse (and universe mass-production mechanism). The second assumes blind luck the likes of which is unprecedented anywhere else in the known universe.

To say 'there's no proof therefore it must not be' negates all three, pretty well meaning it's wrong. To say 'there's no proof therefore I'm unconvinced', on the other hand, is perfectly rational.

*The Anthropic Principle states that various constants in physics, without any reason for being so, are finely tuned to allow for life. In most cases, a change of less than 1% would make life impossible.

**The Anthropic Discovery Principle (not invented by me, but the people who noticed it didn't name it) states that these same and similar constants are finely tuned to allow life to explore and discover the universe.

 

There are a lot of assumptions there NOG.

I think your possibility #2 is the most plausable* (the 'highly unlikely' is quite an exaggeration on your part) -- and of course the laws of physics, biology, chemistry, and attraction favor life ... if it were not so we would not exist. And actually the "blind luck" as you call it must exists everywhere in the universe or the universe would not be.

There are specific principles of physics which govern the formation of galaxies and solar systems. So the formation of the celestial bodies is not random chance. What is random chance is the development of a planet which can sustain life and the development of intelligence for the living organisms in that planet. Given the number of galaxies, solar systems, and planets out there even your "multiple exponents" chance makes our world a probability occurance. I understand some people just cannot accept they are a random event, but that's life.

If we ever do find intelligent life from other solar systems or galaxies I think the entire "God" issue would be put to rest.

Edit: * - choice #3 appeared to mean the existence of multiverses -- something suggested by various physicists (IIRC including Einstein) and latched onto by many fiction writers (and something I don't agree with). If you instead meant the repetitive nature of the universe (big bang - collapse - big bang - collapse) then perhaps, but I still would not believe the constants of the universe would change with every repetition. I also think that with the huge timeframe between repitions the concept of different universes is rather moot so #2 and #3 are essentially the same.

 

Sadly, I cannot/do not. If I allow the possibility of something existing where any means of proof or disproof are completely unattainable, then it follows that I should allow that for anything where any means of proof or disproof are completely unattainable, which seems absurd to me. It would apply to totally imaginary objects too. At least my assumption is logically self-consistent.

Of the choices you listed, I think #3 nails it. As a corrolary, I think intelligent life is an exceedingly rare occurrance, but considering only intelligent life could consider such possibilities, it's fine to postulate that humans are one of those exceedingly rare occurrances.

Also, I do not think our understanding of possibility #2 and #3 are complete. There are a ton of hypotheses out there on universe creation - all top level physics stuff, some of which suggest the existence of something like 10 or so dimensions. The point is there is actually mathematical proofs out there that give a plausible explanation for universe creation within the laws of physics as we currently understand them.

I do not have such high hopes for the first scenario though. Keep in mind that I think that no one can know with absolute certainty whether or not god exists, but I don't stop there. I think that such information is unknowable, both in the present and in the future.

As an ancillary point, I have a more general question for you NOG. I know you believe in the existence of the Christian God. However, I assume that you are at least agnostic, if not atheistic in regards to the ancient Greek, Roman, Norse, and the thousands of other gods that have been worshipped in the history of mankind. My question is twofold: 1.) Why do you believe such and 2.) How is it logically consistent to believe in one particular god, but not other gods?

 

I know the discussion has moved in a bit of a different direction, but I'll still answer the posts that were directed at me recently (that haven't since been addressed).

Actually I did read that quite carefully, and addressed it when I said:

Perhaps that part was lost on you?

Sounds fine to me, but when did this turn into a quasi-free speech defense? I don't recall ever attempting to silence you or tell you what you could or couldn't believe.

I'll answer this as though it's an honest question. No, I don't think or "believe" that there are invisible pink unicorns behind the moon, much as I don't think that there is a god. I have seen no evidence of them, although since you've offered a comparatively finite set of circumstances - where they are located specifically, their description - it should be fairly simple to determine whether they're there or not. I don't think any of our spacecraft that has gone to the dark side of the moon has detected the presence of pink unicorns.

That said, I'm not prepared to state categorically that they're not there. What if someone found them later on? That would show that any insistence that they weren't there (without immutable evidence) was premature. It would not show that my suspicion that they were not there was premature. (The pink unicorn part is designed to make the example look absurd rather than rely on an argument, but substitute 'microbial life' or something like that for the unicorns and it becomes much more plausible.)

As to my need to prove they are not there, as with the middle ground in the question of god, I haven't made any claim and thus have no obligation to prove anything. I've said "I suspect that there are no pink unicorns on the dark side of the moon," not "I know for a fact that there are no pink unicorns on the dark side of the moon." Simple as that.

 

Perhaps you should reread your statements Gaear and rephrase them. Stating a person is obligated to fully defend any statement of non-belief they want to make is pretty much an attempt to silence. I hope I was clear in stating I wouldn't fall for such tactics.

 

No, I'm afraid that's not quite right. I asked that anyone making the assertion that there is no god defend that assertion. That's not unreasonable, and in fact it's an encouragement for people to hold forth, not an attempt to silence them. The fact that you can't or haven't defended that position (and I'm still not sure if you ever even said it yourself - if not, you logically have no obligation to defend it) doesn't equal me trying to silence you with my dubious 'tactics.'

I find it odd that we're focusing on this rather nebulous accusation instead of the debate at hand, but I'll stop short of suggesting that you're deliberately trying to confuse the issue. It could be that you'd simply prefer not to discuss the god question anymore. If so, I'm not the vindictive type so I'll happily let you off the hook. Fair enough?