Because when I am asking myself “How did existence come about?”…Flying Spaghetti Monsters never come to mind. But the possibility of gods does come to mind; namely, if I consider the possibility that gods are involved in the question of “How did existence come about?”…I must also consider the possibility that Flying Spaghetti Monsters are possible also.
Whenever the FSM comes up…it ONLY comes up when I am in debate with an atheist who is trying to make a point that I consider absurd.
The notion that gods may be a possible explanation for existence comes up in all sorts of philosophical discussions.
That is why.
No problem with me if you do not think it silly or fatuous. Not sure why it is a problem with you if I do.
Because except for “there isn’t any evidence that gods exist” and “there is no need for gods to exist”…neither of which is really evidence that gods do not exist…there simply isn’t any evidence that gods do not exist.
That is why.
And if you think there is “sufficient evidence” that no gods exist…present it for consideration.
Evidence for the non-existence of gods does not need to exist, for those who propose these gods do so without evidence to disprove.
There is nothing of substance to disprove.
I repeat: There is nothing of substance to disprove.
Actually, this argument started with Thomas Aquinas doing what so many atheists attempt to do…essentially to set up a false default on the question.
Atheists claim that in the absence of evidence that there ARE GODS…the default position should be that there are no gods.
Thomas Aquinas, in his “first cause” argument, concludes that since all events have causes, the default position for the “first cause” should be THERE IS A GOD that is the first cause. (He did it for “mover” etc. also.)
Aquinas and the atheists are, in my agnostic opinion, all wrong.
The default position should be “We do not know.”
So, Dan…you are absoluely right. It doesn’t make sense.
But neither does the default position of atheists.
You’re making a blanket statement about what atheists claim that is total bullshit. The most common atheist claim is that in the absence of evidence the default position should be **lack of belief **that there are gods.
Thank you for your reply, Bear. I will comment at length on your comments.
Well, first of all allow me to go on record as saying that I am not sure if life is or is not unique to Earth (my purely blind guess is that it is not)…and I cannot say, as you do, that it probably is pretty rare (the universe may be teeming with life and our Solar system may be the only one with life being rare). I honestly do not have enough facts to work on to make either of those conclusions or guesses.
I will say this: The question I was dealing with was: Is a lack of evidence of “x”, evidence that “x” does not exist. That was the purpose of the question I proposed.
My very strong position is that it IS NOT!
Others here claim it IS.
So I proposed the question you mentioned here.
We have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any life exists on any of the planets circling the nearest 5 stars to Sol…NONE WHATSOEVER! (The question of life on our planet…or the proposed probability of life throughout the universe really does not play a part in the question next proposed.)
Is the fact that we have absolutely no evidence whatsoever of sentient life (or life of any kind) on any of the planets circling the nearest 5 stars to Sol evidence that there is no life on any of those planets…or not?
The answer, Bear, has to be NO!
There is no way to make a logical argument that the lack of evidence of life on any of those planets is evidence of no life there.
That’s all.
It is an attempt to show that a lack of evidence of “x”…is not evidence that “x” does not exist.
I honestly think I have made my case.
I would say we have fairly strong evidence that astrology does not work at all. We do not have any real evidence that gods do not exist.
I have enough evidence to guess that Yahweh, Zeus, and Shiva are more than likely human inventions. I do not have enough evidence to guess that no gods exist.
I would not even undertake such a mission. I never ask for proof of gods from theists…nor do I ask for proof of no-gods from atheists. When an assertion is made that there are gods…I ask for evidence supporting the assertion; when an assertion is made that there are no gods…I ask for evidence supporting that assertion.
I have never gotten any reasonable evidence to support a position of “there are gods” or “there are no gods” or “it is more likely there are gods than that there are no gods” or “it is more likely there are no gods than that there are gods.”
That is purely a personal thing. I understand that intelligent, well-intentioned people disagree…some saying they see evidence in favor of gods existing or as being more probable than gods exist…and some saying they see evidence in favor of gods not existing or as being more probable that gods do not exist.
Like I said: I see the evidence pointing in neither direction.
Whatever he was, I know what I am. An agnostic.
Thanks for not being as confrontational or as riled as some of the good folk here have been, Bear. Good to talk to you.
I should have said that ***some ***atheists make that claim.
My argument is with the ones that do.
In any case, in the absence of evidence of that gods exist…the default position should be a lack of belief that gods exist…and a lack of belief that gods do not exist. In other words…we do not know.
$1000000 diamonds exist. It is possible that someone walking past your house accidentally dropped one. Though it wouldn’t take much effort on your part, how much time are you going to waste looking for that theoretical diamond, or even contemplating the possibility that there might be a $1000000 diamond in front of your house?
Are you agnostic towards that possibility, or do you dismiss that possibility out of hand?
$1000000 diamonds exist. It is possible that someone walking past your house accidentally dropped one. Though it wouldn’t take much effort on your part, how much time are you going to waste looking for that theoretical diamond, or even contemplating the possibility that there might be a $1000000 diamond in front of your house?
Are you agnostic towards that possibility, or do you dismiss that possibility out of hand?
I’m open minded towards the possibility that what has been observed to happen here might happen elsewhere. Start giving these hypothetical critters abilities that defy science and/or logic, and we’ve got problems.
Right. And by common definition we call that person an atheist.
Wrong. Lack of belief does not mean not knowing. I lack belief that I’m the Queen of England and I also know that I’m not. Atheists can lack belief that gods exist and claim to know that they don’t. It’s what hard atheists claim in case you’re not aware. You may not like these definitions but you’re stuck with them. You don’t have to use them, but the majority of atheists and religious philosophers do. If would help you be on the same page if you’re going to discuss these matters instead of bitching that they don’t apply to you.
You seem to think the possibility of gods being a part of the Reality of existence is about on a par with (or even less than) the possibility of someone walking past my house and dropping a $1,000,000 diamond and my finding it.
Why don’t you show us how you arrived at either of those probabilities…especially the probablility that gods exist as part of the Reality of existence.
By the way…while walking in New York City one day…I once found two diamonds in the street. They were part of a ring that somehow had been dropped in the street and run over by cars. But the gold in the ring…and the diamonds…are still in my desk drawer.
It happens…no matter how unlikely it may seem.
In the meantime…why don’t you tell us what the default answer is to my question about whether or not sentient beings exist on any planet circling the 5 nearest stars to Sol?
Only if you purposefully cut off the rest of the statement.
What on earth are you talking about?
Stop breaking the statement up so you can make arguments that do not hold water if you do not break them up.
Great, what does that have to do with my statement?
They can lack belief that gods exist and claim that they are all Napoleon also. So what?
I am aware of that. Whatever gave you the notion that I was not?
I say they do not. So show me the evidence that “the majority of atheists and religious philosophers” do.
Not even sure what that sentence is suppose to mean…it is almost incomprehensible. But if you were saying there are circumstances where you would be on my side…let me know what those circumstances are, and I will avoid them.
No, even with the rest of your statement one is an atheist.
You must have asked that to posters about a dozen times over the past few days. I don’t know why you’re having such a hard time understanding plain English.
I didn’t take anything out of context.
What’s so hard to understand? You said lack of belief is synonymous with not knowing. My example is to show you’re wrong. That you’re now saying “great”, I take it that you’re now admitting it. Good for you.
You’ve been shown. For days now people have been showing you but you want to beat a dead horse over and over. When is the golf course re-opening?
I bet no one is having a hard time understanding what I wrote. The same as I haven’t had a hard time understanding what others wrote every time you make that same claim.