[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
“Free Will” is a logical impossibility, by the way, but that’s a different debate.
[/QUOTE]
I prefer to think of it as the atheist’s God of the Gaps but, as you well said, that is a different debate. Your thread or my thread? 
[QUOTE=Sapo]
If you believe because you have sufficient evidence (to your personal standards) is not a faith-based belief at all. That is just a conviction and, as such, is subject to conscious re-examination. Faith is believing in what you cannot prove or show any evidence for (IMO).
(and speaking of convictions, I am perceiving that you seem convinced that I believe in God. You may be assuming too much 
)
[/QUOTE]
May be? Then I may apologise for assuming too much.
Here’s the thing with faith. Theists still have it, despite the evidence that their god exists, because that evidence is never 100%. There’s no evidence that proves a god exists. Where theists bring in faith is to bridge the gap between the amount of evidence there is - let’s say for argument on the evidence it’s 50% likely that the god exists - and a reality where the evidence is 100%. Theists have faith that their god exists, when a position totally based on the evidence would be “my god might exist, I suppose”.
Revenant, if I may interject with a question: Do you entertain the possibility that the cognitive science of “belief” will one day provide an entirely natural explanation for “believing in the supernatural”?
(I am thinking of the mental combination of properties which allows us to take memories of eg. horses and memories of men and “photoshop” a man-horse combination, centaur, which does not actually exist.)
Is there any possible evidence to the existence of God? The evidence puts it where it is 0% likely that God exists and faith must bridge that 100% gaps, IMO. What is it that might even clue you to the existence of God? (other than the fact that 95% of the human populations believes it so)
I don’t understand what’s so hard about this default position thing.
The “reasonable” default position is not to ASSERT that there is NO X in the absence of evidence for X. That’s neither a default position nor particular reasonable nor even particularly tactically wise. It involves making completely gratuitous claims that get you nothing but trouble.
Everything I need to challenge arguments FOR the existence of god I can get with the real, legitimate default position, which is simple refusal to assent TO claims that are unsubstantiated that are brought before me. Meanwhile, I can live my life based on those things that I feel I no choice but to infer or assume (such as the sensory world I appear to share with all other observers) and the things I think I can know built on those assumptions. If someone proposes that a God exists, I’m not inclined to believe it. But if someone asserts that one definitively doesn’t exist, I’m not particularly inclined to believe that either.
I don’t need to believe that no god exists to see no reason to believe in faith healing or not feel particularly guilty for not going to church every Sunday. That’s silly, and taking things far too far.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
I do not know any atheists who sprung from the loins of atheists.
[/QUOTE]
Now you know one.
[QUOTE=Sapo]
Is there any possible evidence to the existence of God? The evidence puts it where it is 0% likely that God exists and faith must bridge that 100% gaps, IMO. What is it that might even clue you to the existence of God? (other than the fact that 95% of the human populations believes it so)
[/QUOTE]
95% of the world used to believe that the sun and moon were gods. That’s called an argumentum ad populum fallacy. The fact that lots of people – or a majority of people – or even a totality of people believe something does not make that belief any more likely to be true.
There are plenty of things which could theoretically constitute evidence for God, or even absolute proof. Any entity who could demonstrate an ability to control the physical universe (i.e. perform “miracles”) would constitute evidence. An omnipotent God could also simply will everyone to know he exists and remove all doubt.
[QUOTE=Sapo]
I prefer to think of it as the atheist’s God of the Gaps but, as you well said, that is a different debate. Your thread or my thread?
[/QUOTE]
What gaps?
I guess I can start the thread. We’ve done the free will debate here several times but I’ve never heard this “atheists’ god of the gaps” retort. See you in the next thread.
Here you go, Sapo.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
95% of the world used to believe that the sun and moon were gods. That’s called an argumentum ad populum fallacy. The fact that lots of people – or a majority of people – or even a totality of people believe something does not make that belief any more likely to be true.
[/QUOTE]
That’s the origin of: “74 billion flies can’t be wrong: eat sh!t” 
That’s why I am not accepting it as evidence. As I said, the theists have 0 evidence to their point and must cover the whole leap with pure faith.
[QUOTE=SentientMeat]
The version to which I, and I believe most reasonable people, ascribe (if only in an unspoken manner) is this:
If a natural explanation exists, no supernatural explanation is necessary.
[/QUOTE]
The version I’ve always heard is
Do not multiply entities unnecessarily.
[QUOTE=Apos]
The “reasonable” default position is not to ASSERT that there is NO X in the absence of evidence for X. That’s neither a default position nor particular reasonable nor even particularly tactically wise.
[/quote]
It is the reasonable if there’s no evidence that such a thing is even possible, and/or if there’s no reason to believe such things exist. Which is one reason people compare God to the IPU or FSM.
[QUOTE=lowbrass]
The version I’ve always heard is
Do not multiply entities unnecessarily.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, this is generally attributed to Ockham, but I don’t think it really captures the principle of parsimony in philosophy which already existed. For this reason, I think better versions of the Razor come before William of Ockham …
*“The more perfect a nature is, the fewer means it requires for its operation.” *– Aristotle, ca. 330 BCE.
*“If a thing can be done adequately by means of one, it is superfluous to do it by means of several; for we observe that nature does not employ two instruments where one suffices” * - Thomas Aquinas, 1265 CE.
…and the best of all comes after:
“We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances” – Isaac Newton, 1687.
All of these clearly ascribe primacy to nature over supernature.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
It is the reasonable if there’s no evidence that such a thing is even possible, and/or if there’s no reason to believe such things exist. Which is one reason people compare God to the IPU or FSM.
[/QUOTE]
“No evidence that it’s possible” is not the same as “Evidence that it is impossible.” In the 19th Century, there was no evidence that time could speed up or slow down. While there was no evidence it was possible, it would have been wrong to say it was impossible.
[QUOTE=Sapo]
You can make God silly, useless, important, all-encompassing. Your choice. Personal choice. Can’t be rationalized.
[/QUOTE]
Now you have me really confused. I have the power to choose what facts are? I can choose to make the laws of physics one thing or another, according to my preference? :dubious: 
[QUOTE=Sapo]
Valteron, although I agree with your post in every other respect and in its intended meaning, I must take issue with this part:
That experiment is polluted as there is no such thing as an “unprayed for” group. Catholics everywhere (and many others, I am sure) pray for all the diseased and infirm. Unless prayer is a quantifiable effect and you are trying to measure a difference caused by a specific prayer (which makes a huge untested assumption about how prayer works), there is no way to shield the control group from unwanted and unaccounted for prayer.
Plus, how did they determined if these “believing christians” were really believing. Or that they were praying “right” or that they were not praying for those poor guys in the control group (and if they weren’t then they were very bad christians).
That experiment was a total crock.
[/QUOTE]
The experiment in question is described in detail in a recent issue of Skeptic Magazine (I read it in early December).
I agree that any experiment that attempts to measure the effects of prayers to a non-existent God is bound to be a bit stupid, but it is important to note that this experiment was a very long and thorough one, and that it follows a very flawed and improperly run “experiment” of a few years ago that seemed to imply that the “beneficial effects” of prayer on the sick could be measured. Naturally, those results received uncritical and sensationalized media coverage.
I will not attempt to defend or explain the experiment reported in Skeptic, since you can look it up and examine the entire protocol.
But regarding your objection that there was no way to ensure that the “unprayed” for group was not being prayed for by others who pray for all the sick generally, my response would be that in that case, these “unaccounted” prayers would be of equal benefit to the “prayed for” group and the “unprayed for” group. Unless you are going to tell me that some good Christians somewhere were praying for “people who are infirm or ill and who are not being prayed for because they are part of a control group in an experiment”.
If the people doing the praying were, as you suggest, praying for the unprayed-for control group anyhow, then it is their own fault if the experiment showed that prayer had no effect. Kind of ironic, wouldn’t you say? :dubious:
I doubt if the prayer groups knew that there even was an “unprayed-for” control group, but you would have to check this out.
You are right, however, that there would have to be a lot of “crock-like” aspects about such an experiment, because all of religion is a fairy tale anyhow. Does the efficacy of prayer vary according to the quantity of prayers being offered? If so, the experiment would be a failure from the word “go”, because the millions of prayers being offered for ALL the sick all over the world would render insignificant the effects of the prayer groups participating in the experiments.
What I find really interesting about religious believers is this: They constantly pooh-pooh the need for scientific evidence, saying their belief is a matter of faith that does not lend itself to scientific enquiry. But when an experiment like the badly-run, inconclusive and flawed experiment of a few years ago purports to show that the effeicacy of prayer can be demonstrated, theists are only too willing to embrace it. The earlier experiment was reported joyfully in any number of religious publications, with no apparent qualms or concerns about the scientific methods used.
Now when a second, much more thorough experiment like this recent one comes along and demonstrates no effect at all of prayer for the sick, the experiment is criticized and dismissed.
[QUOTE=Valteron]
Now you have me really confused. I have the power to choose what facts are? I can choose to make the laws of physics one thing or another, according to my preference? :dubious:
[/QUOTE]
No, you have the power to choose what to believe of a supernatural god. Here is a more complete quote from the posted you quoted:
[QUOTE=myself, Sapo]
God must remain unfalsifiable in order to be God. If we can explain god, then it becomes just another phenomenom. Luckily for the theistically inclined, there will always be gaps to science and there will always be room for God. Even if we managed to close all the gaps in knowledge, we are bookended by the Big Bang and ultimate end of the universe (whichever flavour you happen to believe in) and God can always sit outside those.
So what point is there in considering an eternally unfalsifiable God? none, of course. The [non-]existence of God should be no factor in how science is conducted. People can personally choose to take their version of God as a consideration to their moral decisions but not their practical ones. Morality is in itself, an out-of-science way of making decisions between inconmeasurable goods, so there really is no overlap between Science and God.
You can make God silly, useless, important, all-encompassing. Your choice. Personal choice. Can’t be rationalized.
[/QUOTE]
What I am saying here is that anyone is free to believe what he wants about a supernatural God that cannot interact with nature as we perceive it. As there is aboslutely no evidence of the existence or non-existence of such a God, it becomes purely a matter of faith. An internal process that bears no rationalization or justification.
[QUOTE=Valteron]
You are right, however, that there would have to be a lot of “crock-like” aspects about such an experiment, because all of religion is a fairy tale anyhow. Does the efficacy of prayer vary according to the quantity of prayers being offered? If so, the experiment would be a failure from the word “go”, because the millions of prayers being offered for ALL the sick all over the world would render insignificant the effects of the prayer groups participating in the experiments.
[/QUOTE]
bolding mine.
This is precisely my point. You can throw additional cogs at it just for fun, but this is the fundamental flaw. A very serious assumption is being made about how prayer works with no justification either on measurable evidence nor the stated belief of the believers.
As for the previous experiment proving that prayer works :rolleyes: . I would find it just as questionable as science, I am sure (and unjustifiable from a faith perspective). I would welcome a link, though (Entertainment purposes only)
My bitch is with organized religion. I want them to pay taxes. The separation of church and state has been rendered quaint.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
It is the reasonable if there’s no evidence that such a thing is even possible, and/or if there’s no reason to believe such things exist. Which is one reason people compare God to the IPU or FSM.
[/QUOTE]
Nope. We have no ability to judge possibility about such things. The example of time slowing down is a good one: how could anyone even conceive of that prior to encountering evidence for it?
And again, what is the POINT of confidently asserting that it does not exist? That doesn’t even sound like a default position (since it requires doing and thinking something), much less pass the smell test for simply skepticism. Simple skepticism of the idea of a god existing gets you everything you need without taking on any additional claims or burdens of proof or anything.