I see what you’re saying…maybe “disparaging” is a more accurate term.
I agree. The whole Occam’s Razor thing is the lamest arguement for the existence of got that I’ve ever heard. Anywhere. In that context, you must substitute “lazy” for “simple.”
What makes the existence of God any more unknowable than anything else?
As I understand it, by virtue of what god is, i.e., an all-knowing, mystical creator of all things, who’s always been there, but never seen by anyone, etc., etc., and the fact that he oversees an afterlife place, and the fact that there are so many different interpretations of what he is supposed to be, and the fact that you can’t meet him until you’re dead, and that there is no agreement that he even exists…makes it unknowable. He’s not supposed to be “like anything else”.
Then anybody could make up any number of things not “like anything else”, and everyone would have to say that the existence of those things is unknowable, not that they don’t exist.
I think the point is that there is a lot of stuff that IS knowable. But a concept as incomprehensible as a super-being, that consciously creates things and controls destinies (or for that matter, one that doesn’t give a damn what we do, but created us anyway), or that created something so long ago that we don’t even know when it happened, is not. Even the people who claim to “know” can’t answer the questions. Hence, the faith thing. If the nature of god is what modern man says it is, we can’t know. And if it isn’t … we still can’t know because we don’t know what it is we don’t know. Or something like that.
The easy answer is to say that he doesn’t exist. But I don’t know that. I haven’t seen any proof that he does, and I’m not banking that there is a god, but I’m the last person to think I have the answers on something so friggin’ huge that the entire planet has been pondering it for millions of years. Maybe there is…maybe there isn’t. I doubt god would be a christian, though. I don’t think a true god would be religious in the man-made sense.
So do you believe in fire-breathing dragons? After all, there’s as much evidence for them as there is for any God.
Or would you agree it is logical not to think dragons exist?
How about fairies? Pink Unicorns? Father Xmas on his flying sleigh with reindeer?
At what point do you think that having zero evidence of something’s existence does more than ‘cast doubt’ on it?
I can’t see the logic in your position!
We know that gravity exists. We know what effects it has. We **all agree ** on what the position of the bodies in the Solar System will be (see your diary for eclipse details).
Our lives run considerably better if we always take gravity into account.
All this is logical.
I am not a physicist, so won’t attempt an explanation of how it works.
But I know gravity exists. That is a supremely logical position.
Meanwhile, over to ‘God’:
- there are no detectable effects of God
- there are innumerable sects, religions and beliefs (Judaism contradicts Christianity; Protestants disagree with Catholics; nobody worships Ra, the Sun God, any more - though they did build some cracking monuments to Him)
- there is no discernable difference whether you believe or not
Why is it therefore logical to believe in any God?
Do you worship Ra? Do you admire his chariot pulling the Sun every morning? Why not?
But isn’t what you’re really saying is that dreams, emotions, morality, etc. (not sure if math belongs in that list) are insufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of God? What I’m hearing is not that God couldn’t theoretically exist, but rather that none of the evidence that exists at this time is sufficient to demonstrate it. The difference I see between the “denies God” and “lacks belief in God” definitions is that in the latter, one does not start with the supposition that God cannot exist, but rather concludes that, given the supposed properties ascribed to God, and the way we have observed the universe to behave, that it’s extremely unlikely. It seems to me that you are doing the latter.
Can you really not imagine ANY set of events that at least theoretically would cause you to consider the possibility that God exists?
I have trouble conceiving of how something can be a particle and a wave at the same time, or how a particle can be in 2 places simultaneously, but I am forced to consider the possibility, since there appears to be evidence to suggest it. Given the plethora of things that seemed impossible yesterday that are now known to be quite possible today, I feel that the only reasonable position to take is “never say never”. It doesn’t mean I’m not sure, it’s just a logical distinction between the starting point being “No God” vs. the conclusion being “No God”.
You apparently missed the fact that my asking for an explanation of the origin and just exactly how gravity works was in responce to a demand by Podkayne that the explanation “God did it” be followed up by a detailed account of where God originated and how He did what was claimed. If that can be required then I can surely require the same thing when it is said that gravity exerts a force.
Glee, you have singlehandedly destroyed my belief in an England filled with even tempered and urbane inhabitants.
But back to the subject. So far the only example of logic has been that if there is insufficient evidence it is “logical” to question God’s existence. However whether or not evidence is sufficient is largely emotional. Those who believe in God look at the same evidence in nature and are convinced by it of the exact opposite conclusion from that of the atheist, by any definition.
I would like to add that
Actually the definition I used was from both the OED and the Merriam-Webster International. I believe that is the most casual dismissal of two respected references that I’ve seen to date.
And of course it has been said here over and over that the word atheist has meanings ranging all the way from a Christian who has an occasional doubt to the hard core who says absolutely no God or even such a possibility and therefore using a definition is no good. And yet when it is suggested that the word “agnostic” might describe many of them better a strictly unchangeable definition of that word was given back by Kalhoun.
Yes, atheist does have a lot of different meanings and that’s a bad thing. With too many meanings words lose their meaning and have to be surrounded by all sorts of “context” to convery the exact shade of meaning intended. If the word needs to be explained by a half page of “context” then why not throw away the word and just use the “context,” sort of like stone soup?
I would like to add that I consider it patronizing to tell me that dictionary definitions don’t end all discussion but are only the dictionary editors’ take on the common usage.
No one has yet given and example and started from a premise and arrived at atheism. However, most of you have agreed among youselves that you are supremely logical while those others are ruled by fantasy, folklore, and emotion. As I have said over and over, I think the probability is nearly zero of a diety as described by the Bible but that is not based on any formal logic any more than is the belief of the most fundamental Biblical literalist.
They may not share Buddhist’s beliefs, but they may Buddhist practices: meditation, diet, comtemplation of koan, etc.
They may not share Buddhist’s beliefs, but they may share Buddhist practices: meditation, diet, comtemplation of koan, etc.
I must say that’s a rather obtuse response. I made it quite clear that while I conceded that such a definition does appear in a dictionary, that I nevertheless believe it to be a poor one. The Oxford Dictionary is also a respected reference, yet it has a different definition. And GorillaMan already pointed out that the Cambridge Dictionary does as well. So your argument from authority doesn’t really hold much traction. If “respected” sources can disagree, then it’s quite obvious that being a respected source cannot be the only consideration. You seem to want to play some bizarre game of “I’ve got more dictionaries with my definition than you do with yours”, which is a fruitless pursuit.
And I assure you that my dislike of your preferred definition is anything but casual.
Um, YOU are the one who first hit us with the definition game.
I have no problem with definitions; I just prefer useful ones over confusing ones. The word “agnostic” is a poor substitute for “atheist”, since “agnostic” already has it’s own meaning. That would be like saying, “From now on, I’ll call a chair a ‘door’”. Problem is, there’s already a thing called a “door”. “Agnostic” doesn’t describe what I am, either in the strict sense or the common sense. I do not believe that God is intrinsically unknowable, nor am I undecided.
As far as I’m concerned, it only has ONE meaning: “One who does not believe in god(s).” It’s clear, unambiguous, and concise. To the extent that you are trying to ascribe other meanings to it, you’re just confusing the issue.
Why not just use the definition I have suggested, and avoid the whole problem?
Well, I consider you patronizing, so I guess we’re even.
Oh, really. Most of us agreed on that, huh?:rolleyes: Do you mind? I’m allergic to straw.
Well you’re right about that. I don’t believe God can be disproved by formal logic, at least not as long as the definition of “God” is allowed to remain nebulous. Occam’s Razor is a heuristic, not a logical proof. It is however, eminently reasonable and practical. Rather than believe every one of the infinite number of conceivable ideas (Santa Claus, IPU, Easter Bunny, Leprechauns, etc.), I choose to withhold judgment pending any reasonable evidence showing up. Not a logical proof, just the only rational, non-chaotic way to exist. And I’m not saying that theists are irrational or chaotic; just that they either aren’t applying the Razor in this one particular instance, OR they simply disagree with me as to what the evidence shows.
That’s not so at all. The idea that the universe has always existed went out of fashion decades ago. According to the most recent data, the universe is 13.7 billion years old.
I don’t fully understand how it all works - well, nobody does, but they’re working on it - but the material that was Banged had to come from somewhere and I think an explanation is forthcoming, even if I’m not a physicist. If I remember right, matter pretty much can come out of nowhere if the right conditions are met, usually in incredibly small amounts.
That’s wrong. The question “what existed before the Big Bang?” is the meaningless one. That’s because there is no ‘before the Big Bang.’ Space and time are the same thing, so there was no time before the Big Bang because the universe didn’t exist. There is no ‘negative time.’
blow:
I’m really really saying that I find the physical explanation more convincing than the non-physical or divine one, especially since this avoid an Ockam-slashing.
[/quote]
What I’m hearing is not that God couldn’t theoretically exist, but rather that none of the evidence that exists at this time is sufficient to demonstrate it. The difference I see between the “denies God” and “lacks belief in God” definitions is that in the latter, one does not start with the supposition that God cannot exist, but rather concludes that, given the supposed properties ascribed to God, and the way we have observed the universe to behave, that it’s extremely unlikely. It seems to me that you are doing the latter.
[/quote]
That, to me, sounds like ascribing “default” status to physicalism or atheism. There is no a priori worldview, IMO. We wake up on this wonderful prison and pick an explanation for it, that’s all. All of the attempts I have ever seen to paint a particular philosophy as ‘standard’ quickly drown in a metaphysical quagmire, IMO.
I have alread said that I consider the possibility. I can simply not conceive of events which would move my belief-o-meter needle into the affirmative.
Agreed, of course - see my twice repeated quote to Polerius admitting the possibility that God does exist physically. It is simply extremely small in my mind, especially since most definitions of God are that His nature is not physical.
[/quote]
It doesn’t mean I’m not sure, it’s just a logical distinction between the starting point being “No God” vs. the conclusion being “No God”.
[/quote]
Like I said, I’m wary of these “starting points” since it appears that any evidence can be used in support of any starting point, there being no evidence which distinguishes true “starting points” from false. We wake on our prison and must give each explanation our full consideration. I am satisfied with mine - what more can one be?
Marley
And that 13.7 billion years might well be “always”.
I’d say it was now back in fashion, actually. What is out of fashion is the idea that the universe did not exist at some point and that there was a “something from nothing” event.
So it makes sense to say that the universe exists over all time, ie. it has always existed.
Yes, you’re right. And I almost put in a sentence or two to that effect, and I can see how maybe Polerius was confused by that. I took him to mean (like you did) that the universe existed a billion years ago, 100 billion years ago, 100 trillion years ago, etc., but there was nothing in it until later. In other words, a Steady State universe with a Big Bang inside it. It’s sort of the same as “What did the Big Bang happen in?” or “What was there before the Big Bang?” You can’t just answer the question, you have to explain some things.
Yes, I didn’t realise you were responding to Podkayne.
But can’t you see the difference between gravity and God?
We have extensive evidence of gravity and make successful predictions based on our understanding of it. It’s a force which always acts in the same predictable way.
By contrast, there is no evidence of any God.
Oh, we have people as rude as you!
We also have creationists, the BNP and violent criminals. **Of course ** I am not comparing you to any of those categories, merely instantly proving that one of your beliefs is false.
Why on earth does the above post offend you so much?
My questions were perfectly serious.
What is there that you don’t believe in?
What is the logic that you use to believe in something?
And I am staggered by the use of your phrase ‘it is said that gravity exerts a force’. Do you not fully accept gravitational effects?
Ha, I was going to reply saying I don’t quite live in Britain. But last night I saw the show. (For those out of the loop. the Heron is in the Isle of Man)
I would probably get beat up, not being Manx. 
Strange how they hate non-manx, but they like the English footy team Liverpool FC.
Did you see the toddler finishing someone’s pint? (Or maybe it was her own :eek: )