Islam4UK

[Xordium]

A logical and rational person simply says that, in the absence of evidence, the existence or non-existence of the entity is irrelevant...

Whilst I have agreed with you so far in this thread this I can not agree with. A logical, rational and scientific minded person would say there is no evidence for the theory yet there can be no absolute proof against therefore I believe in all likelihood there is no god, due to the lack of evidence, yet I can not categorically say for sure and would change my position immediately upon the presentation of affirmative evidence. I believe this is, for example, Dawkin's stance.

You are seeming to indicate that if a position can not be adequately explained we are to adopt a position of ambivalence with a wholescale lack of curiosity which seems to be me to go against the whole drive behind scientific discovery. There is little evidence for and against a great number of theories and we would not have made the leaps in medicine, physics etc if we had just said oh well can't suss this one let's knock it on the head as a don't bother. Maybe this is not what you are saying but that's the way it comes across to me (bear in mind its just past midnight though and the brain cells have gone to bed).

 

[fini]

I think we're all agreed that the existence of god(s) is unprovable, so trying to 'knock it on the head' is not relevant as there is no way to do that.

I'm sorry to resort to analogies again, but if I was to say that I have a brother would you believe me? You have no evidence that I have a brother and, short of tracking me down, evidence is not (practically) obtainable. Would you, then, assume that (a) I was lying (b)I was telling the truth or (c) you neither believed I had a brother nor disbelieved me?

Using this example, it's easy to argue that in most real-life circumstances you would give a proposition the benefit of the doubt until evidence against it was shown - you would believe me that I had a brother. This is the opposite of what most Atheists in this thread claim to be the default position.

Now that we have concluded that, through example, that it is possible to claim that the default scientific position should be both that something does exist and doesn't exist depending on circumstances (and forgetting any of Schrödinger's pets for one moment) would it not be best, rather than playing battle of the analogies, simply to assume the middle ground position that the existence of an item, without any evidence either way, must be assumed to not be of large importance as no reliance can be put on either finding.

 

[Fenris]

Using this example, it's easy to argue that in most real-life circumstances you would give a proposition the benefit of the doubt until evidence against it was shown - you would believe me that I had a brother. This is the opposite of what most Atheists in this thread claim to be the default position.

Your example would only be valid if we had at some time been told "this god exists" and then had it proven, the reason we would believe you if you said "I have a brother" is because in most peoples experiences they have met MANY people with brothers and then gone on to meet these brothers and also because we KNOW many people have brothers. The example is pointless because we have every reason to believe you have a brother hence giving you the "benefit of the doubt", also finding out you don't have a brother would not reflect badly on us, only on you, kind of like the Wizard of Oz, a guy who claims to be a wizard in a land of amazing things and also witches, yet turns out to just be a normal guy, the people who believe he is a wizard are not deluded themselves in a way that they would be if he had never SAID he was a wizard yet they belived otherwise, he is simply deluding them into believing he is in fact something that in such a world is hardly out of place.

The problem is there is nothing you can compare to god, it has to be unprovable in either direction, examples of which unfortunately are rather hard to

 

[Xordium]

would it not be best, rather than playing battle of the analogies, simply to assume the middle ground position that the existence of an item, without any evidence either way, must be assumed to not be of large importance as no reliance can be put on either finding.

On an insignificant thing sure that makes sense. But on something that has an impact on everyone through the projection of action based upon peoples faith then it's not really so good to write off such questions. This is why I think Dawkins is so aggressive in his viewpoints to counteract what he sees as the harmful products of the theists. From a certain logical deduction the meaningless of the question is quite correct except this is a question mankind has been asking since the dawn of time and therefore indicates some extreme relevance for its constant questioning. And logic can not answer all questions or indeed give truth as we discover more and more in science these days.

Sidetracked really though as my point originally was that in modern day terms atheists do not categorically follow the extreme classical point that I think it was Dolph posted and therefore their view does not actually require any act of faith to bring it into existence.

 

[RDM]

You are seeming to indicate that if a position can not be adequately explained we are to adopt a position of ambivalence with a wholescale lack of curiosity which seems to be me to go against the whole drive behind scientific discovery.

Not really. You just need to admit to yourself that if you are taking a position, it is one of faith rather than actual fact. It doesn't stop you believing in it and working towards it and improving it. At the end of the day most moderate religious people I have come across have no proof in the existence of God, they just take it on faith that he exists. They know it is a position of faith.

 

[Xordium]

Not really. You just need to admit to yourself that if you are taking a position, it is one of faith rather than actual fact. It doesn't stop you believing in it and working towards it and improving it. At the end of the day most moderate religious people I have come across have no proof in the existence of God, they just take it on faith that he exists. They know it is a position of faith.

What you find that atheists actually believe, as stated in most of my posts here, requires no faith whatsoever unlike the religious viewpoint or the classical atheist definition which also requires faith. Atheists do not follow the exact classical definition and therefore that definition should not be used - the meaning of words changes over time or with further understanding. Such a position is not based upon faith but fact.

There is no evidence to prove god exists - Fact
There is no evidence to prove that god does not exist - Fact
This does not necessarily leave equal sides of the argument equally weighted - Fact
The bible if taken literally is drastically undermined by scientific and historical discoveries eg Genesis depiction of creation - Fact
The evidence from the scientific disproving hypothesis strongly outweighs the evidence and descriptions from the scriptures - Fact

(If the bible eg Genesis is not to be taken literally then why on earth did god send his only son to get betrayed and crucified for the redemption of the sins of all people that was caused when some make-believe bloke ate an apple?!?)

I am not even saying the atheist viewpoint is my own just that atheist in the absolute god does not exist way does not occur in people whom have thought about the question. That people do think of the question raises its continued relevance.

 

[Chimerical]

(If the bible eg Genesis is not to be taken literally then why on earth did god send his only son to get betrayed and crucified for the redemption of the sins of all people that was caused when some make-believe bloke ate an apple?!?)

The New Testament was kind of written after Jesus died.

 

[Dolph]

Whilst I have agreed with you so far in this thread this I can not agree with. A logical, rational and scientific minded person would say there is no evidence for the theory yet there can be no absolute proof against therefore I believe in all likelihood there is no god, due to the lack of evidence, yet I can not categorically say for sure and would change my position immediately upon the presentation of affirmative evidence. I believe this is, for example, Dawkin's stance.

A good scientific person says nothing of the sort. Does a scientist create a new theory and consider it false before they have done any testing on it?

The only way such a position makes sense is if you have faith in the a priori assumptions of the scientific process, ie philosophically you take the scientific realist stance, rather than the scientific instrumentalist one. (Which fits in with the confirmation you are giving, Dawkins is a scientific realist)

You are seeming to indicate that if a position can not be adequately explained we are to adopt a position of ambivalence with a wholescale lack of curiosity which seems to be me to go against the whole drive behind scientific discovery. There is little evidence for and against a great number of theories and we would not have made the leaps in medicine, physics etc if we had just said oh well can't suss this one let's knock it on the head as a don't bother. Maybe this is not what you are saying but that's the way it comes across to me (bear in mind its just past midnight though and the brain cells have gone to bed).

And you seem to be implying that you can declare a lack of evidence without knowing what evidence should be present in the first place.

What definitive tests can you offer for the existence of God that could therefore be used to infer non-existence?

 

[RDM]

Such a position is not based upon faith but fact.

It isn't really as simple as that. The method you are using to derive your facts is also based on a few prior assumptions, so you are taking that on faith. All that science really does is give you accurate predictions, it can do a hell of a lot with those accurate predictions, but that is all it does. Much like all a computer can do is add up, but it can do an awful lot with just adding up.

There is no evidence to prove god exists - Fact

Not true. There is no scientific evidence that god exists. But then there is no scientific test that can check for the existence of god.

There is no evidence to prove that god does not exist - Fact

Again, scientific evidence due to no test being available.

This does not necessarily leave equal sides of the argument equally weighted - Fact

Indeed, but I am not sure anyone is saying they are?

The bible if taken literally is drastically undermined by scientific and historical discoveries eg Genesis depiction of creation - Fact

"If" the bible is taken literally, so divine word rather than divine inspiration. Not to mention this only has something to say about the Abrahamic God and not the concept of god itself.

The evidence from the scientific disproving hypothesis strongly outweighs the evidence and descriptions from the scriptures - Fact

There is scientific and historical evidence disproving a literal interpretation of the bible, but that is about it. Science has nothing to say about god itself because there is no test yet available.

(If the bible eg Genesis is not to be taken literally then why on earth did god send his only son to get betrayed and crucified for the redemption of the sins of all people that was caused when some make-believe bloke ate an apple?!?)

Because the Adam and Eve bit might be allegorical? You would need to ask a Christian Scholar for that one, I am agnostic.

 

[Dolph]

I do have a problem with having a faith based belief as for one, I hate what the term is synonymous with and second, I just try (as much as possible) to base my opinions and beliefs on fact.

And yet you'll willingly take an unprovable position based on assumption when that assumption comes from the scientific method applied incorrectly.

Allow me to, if I may, to quote Richard Dawkins (if you haven't read the God Delusion, I strongly recommend it) as he addresses this point and responds a hundred times more eloquently than I could dream of.

"But Huxley, in his concentration upon the absolute impossibility of proving or disproving God, seems to have been ignoring the shading of probability. The fact that we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of something does not put existence and non-existence on an even footing. I don't think Huxley would disagree, and I suspect that when he appeared to do so, he was bending over backwards to concede a point, in the interests of securing another one. We have all done this at one time or another.
Contrary to Huxley, I shall suggest that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other. Even if hard to test in practice, belong in the same TAP (temporary agnosticism in practice) box about the universe, discoverable on principle if not in practice. If he existed and chose to reveal it, God himself could clinch the argument, noisily and unequivocally, in his favour. And even if God's existence is never proved or disproved with the certainty one way or the other, available evidence and reason may yield an estimate of probability far from 50 per cent."

Maan, so much waffle... I didn't realise how much. Along with Russell's teapot (which stands for an infinite number of undisprovable entities), the Flying Spaghetti Monster is another great example to illustrate the point. The point of said example is that, like the Abrahamic God, the Spaghetti Monster is undisprovable, however, I'm yet to meet a person that believes the hypothesis of their existence is on an even footing with the hypothesis of their non-existence.

I have read the God delusion, I have no real desire to read it again much as I have no real desire to read other works of personal faith masquerading as considered factual tomes.

Tell me, how much awareness do you have about the philiosophy of science and the various approaches that can be taken as to how science relates to reality? The faith Dawkins expresses isn't so much a faith in the atheist position, as a faith in science that leads to the atheist position, due to the way he believes science relates to the world. It can't be anything other than a belief, because there is no way to prove it true.

 

[Dolph]

What you find that atheists actually believe, as stated in most of my posts here, requires no faith whatsoever unlike the religious viewpoint or the classical atheist definition which also requires faith. Atheists do not follow the exact classical definition and therefore that definition should not be used - the meaning of words changes over time or with further understanding. Such a position is not based upon faith but fact.

I'm probably going to repeat what someone else says here...

There is no evidence to prove god exists - Fact

No, there is no evidence that you accept, gathered by processes you accept, to prove that god exists. This is not the same thing.

There is no evidence to prove that god does not exist - Fact

You haven't even demonstrated yet that you could gather evidence using your proven mechanism (I'm assuming that, as you're quoting Dawkins' logic on the subject, you agree with his 'science defines reality and if it is not scientifically provable it doesn't exist' scientific realism approach.) As such this point (and the previous one as written) are largely irrelevant.

This does not necessarily leave equal sides of the argument equally weighted - Fact

Probability is not fact, so this should not be taken into consideration if you only rely on facts and evidence. Of course, it is also worth pointing out that no-one is saying the two sides are necessarily equal, just that the answers are not definitive enough to make a statement without first invoking some a priori assumptions to back up or reinforce the evidence each one chooses to accept.

The bible if taken literally is drastically undermined by scientific and historical discoveries eg Genesis depiction of creation - Fact

Irrelevant for several reasons, but primarily because Religion != Christianity and god(s) != God from the bible.

The evidence from the scientific disproving hypothesis strongly outweighs the evidence and descriptions from the scriptures - Fact

Only relevant if you make the mistake above.

(If the bible eg Genesis is not to be taken literally then why on earth did god send his only son to get betrayed and crucified for the redemption of the sins of all people that was caused when some make-believe bloke ate an apple?!?)

I am not even saying the atheist viewpoint is my own just that atheist in the absolute god does not exist way does not occur in people whom have thought about the question. That people do think of the question raises its continued relevance.

The above atheist still chooses to disbelieve based on assumptions and faith by the time you get down to the bottom of their thought processes. They are still not lacking belief, but disbelieving, and therefore fit quite happily into the classical 'disbelief in or denial of the existence of God' who makes a statement that cannot be backed up by fact without first building a web of supporting a priori assumptions.

 

[Naffa]

And yet you'll willingly take an unprovable position based on assumption when that assumption comes from the scientific method applied incorrectly.

I take my position based on evidence. There is no evidence that God exists, the probability is that God doesn't exist so I'm going live my life under the belief that he doesn't exist. There's no faith involved in not believing in something when there is no evidence for that things existence. For me, there is no entity to either be proven, nor disproved.

I have read the God delusion, I have no real desire to read it again much as I have no real desire to read other works of personal faith masquerading as considered factual tomes.

Tell me, how much awareness do you have about the philiosophy of science and the various approaches that can be taken as to how science relates to reality? The faith Dawkins expresses isn't so much a faith in the atheist position, as a faith in science that leads to the atheist position, due to the way he believes science relates to the world. It can't be anything other than a belief, because there is no way to prove it true.

Science and religion are incompatible. For one to be religious, they have huge beliefs and base large life decisions on faith, and no evidence whatsoever. This couldn't be further away from a scientific way of thinking (ie creating a theory or idea, and seeking to disprove it in as many ways as possible, and only when it cannot be disproved does it become scientific fact).

Dawkins does not say, and has never said, that science will eventually lead to categorically disproving God. On the contrary, he's said that one cannot know whether God exists. All he's said, is that he believes the God hypothesis to be a question that can be answered by science, despite what a lot of theologians and clergyman say to the contrary.

Also, for the record, the words belief and faith are not synonymous with one another.

 

[Dolph]

I take my position based on evidence. There is no evidence that God exists, the probability is that God doesn't exist so I'm going live my life under the belief that he doesn't exist. There's no faith involved in not believing in something when there is no evidence for that things existence. For me, there is no entity to either be proven, nor disproved.

Science and religion are incompatible. For one to be religious, they have huge beliefs and base large life decisions on faith, and no evidence whatsoever. This couldn't be further away from a scientific way of thinking (ie creating a theory or idea, and seeking to disprove it in as many ways as possible, and only when it cannot be disproved does it become scientific fact).

Dawkins does not say, and has never said, that science will eventually lead to categorically disproving God. On the contrary, he's said that one cannot know whether God exists. All he's said, is that he believes the God hypothesis to be a question that can be answered by science, despite what a lot of theologians and clergyman say to the contrary.

Also, for the record, the words belief and faith are not synonymous with one another.

But this whole area is not a scientific discussion, but a philosophical one. The only way you can apply a scientific approach is if you take the faith based philosophical position of scientific realism...

 

[Surfer]

The point of said example is that, like the Abrahamic God, the Spaghetti Monster is undisprovable, however, I'm yet to meet a person that believes the hypothesis of their existence is on an even footing with the hypothesis of their non-existence.

There's no faith involved in not believing in something when there is no evidence for that things existence. For me, there is no entity to either be proven, nor disproved

Pretty much spot on imo.*thumbs up* I would hazard the majority of "godless" arent atheists as such (Dawkins) but rather the God concept is entirely irrelevant to them. It doesnt even get onto the table of discussion.

Though i wouldnt say the "godless" have no faith whatsover. Its grounded in more common-sense notions however.

 

[Xordium]

"The above atheist still chooses to disbelieve based on assumptions and faith by the time you get down to the bottom of their thought processes."

Well you can apply fancy logic like that all you like but then where would that get us - all back to cogito ergo sum - and that is debatable in itself so saying such an above described position requires some action of faith is kind of a moot point.

Anyway, as I am not an atheist of the "most likely isn't" let alone being one of the rare "does not for sure" I'll sign off for the day on this one as the roast beef is waiting and that is something I can believe in and quite happily worship! I'll continue to quite happily sit on my fence and be of the kind that Dawkins really hates.

 

[Naffa]

But this whole area is not a scientific discussion, but a philosophical one. The only way you can apply a scientific approach is if you take the faith based philosophical position of scientific realism...

Well that's rather good, as I believe philosophers are the people that have disproven (as much as can be) the hypothesis of God more than scientists.

 

[anything I don't mind]

i am going to create an organisation called atheistsforuk in iran. do you think that would go down well ?

what about creating a few hundred christian and catholic churches in the middle east ?

no it would actually be atheists4iran

 

[gambitt]

I'm arguing about who is not wrong, which is a slightly different viewpoint. It is possible that we could all be wrong, or that any one of us could be right.

I'm having trouble understanding this opaque statement. How could everyone be wrong? In regards to the question "is there a god?" (or more generally, a divine being) the answer is either yes or no, is it not? I can't see there being a middle ground here. A partially existing god? And please don't dodge the question by arguing the semantics.

 

[Dolph]

I'm having trouble understanding this opaque statement. How could everyone be wrong? In regards to the question "is there a god?" (or more generally, a divine being) the answer is either yes or no, is it not? I can't see there being a middle ground here. A partially existing god? And please don't dodge the question by arguing the semantics.

Yes, no, yes but not influencing us, no now but possibly in the past, or yes, but in a form that does not match what we thought...

Furthermore, until one of these positions is actually proven by more than faith or assumption, then any position taken could be wrong.

A simple survey of how many people assume god = Abrahamic God (as earlier in this thread) for example, shows how many people on both sides could be wrong in their arguments or reasoning.

 

[ethan]

Well that's rather good, as I believe philosophers are the people that have disproven (as much as can be) the hypothesis of God more than scientists.

Its the quality of their arguments thats the most significant not the amount. Your point is irrelevant anyway since they have not disproven the existance of God but merely expressed an opinion one way or another.

Science and religion are incompatible. For one to be religious, they have huge beliefs and base large life decisions on faith, and no evidence whatsoever. This couldn't be further away from a scientific way of thinking (ie creating a theory or idea, and seeking to disprove it in as many ways as possible, and only when it cannot be disproved does it become scientific fact).

I wasn't aware there was such a thing as a non disprovable scientific fact and so in what way does this differ to/than having huge beliefs and making large life decisions about many of the "facts" of science? This has already been pointed out to you-albeit in a slightly different way.