Why would you say that? If I were claim that there is a 10-ton mosquito currently sipping blood by the gallon from my jugular vein, I’m sure you would be able to come up with all sorts of counter-evidence to disprove my claim.
With regard to the existence of God, keep in mind that for most of human history God has been described as taking an active role in the physical universe. He created the Earth, performed miracles, spoke to prophets, rewarded his followers with material blessings, punished disbelievers with curses, etc. If God is defined as a being that does all these things, and it can be shown that some or all of those things either didn’t actually occur or have a simpler explanation, then it can be said that one has disproven his existence. If I claim that there is a magical rain cloud that drops rain on my house every Saturday at 11:00, and you can show that last Saturday not a drop of rain landed on my roof, you have therefore disproved the existence of my magical rain cloud.
Of course in response to this, you could simply redefine the concept of God in such a way that, while it disagrees with the way he has been described throughout history, makes no claims whatsoever that can actually be verified or falsified. This does not mean that God’s existence cannot be disproved, however – it simply means that you have admitted that the traditional notion of God can’t possibly exist.
Science deals in probabilities, not certainties. However, sufficiently large probabilities are very, very similar to certainties – so much so that it not only becomes insanely difficult to distinguish the two, but for virtually all purposes they’re functionally identical.
For example, if I want to know if a coin is fairly balanced, I can flip it over and over again to see if its behavior is consistent with behavior expected from a fair coin. It might be the case that the coin is fair, but a fluke of chance causes it to come up heads much more than tails. The coin might be unfair, but a fluke of chance causes it to come up heads as much as tails.
All I can do is find the probability that the world actually matches my hypothesis.
Of course, when you ascribe to the entity properties and characteristics which are easily detectable, then you can use them to argue that it constitutes evidence-of-not. But it doesn’t, because those ascribed properties might be incorrect. There is still only an absence of evidence, not evidence of absence. Now, real life and skepticism only deal with those detectable properties, they have nothing to say about the existence of the entities themselves.
No true Scotsman…er, sceptic sorry, would admit any such thing. Even if God had never, up until now, interacted with the universe in a detectable way, we can never offer evidence that He never will.
Again, I have to ask why you make this statement. If an entity is defined as having certain properties, and it can be shown that those properties do not, in fact, exist, then you have proven that the entity itself does not exist.
If one is forced to constantly redefine the properties of the entity one believes in, one is admitting that the entity as previously described did not exist. And if one is eventually forced to redefine the entity as one which has no properties whatsoever, then one has effectively admitted that the entity itself does not exist at all.
Ah, but my point is that throughout history claims have been made that God has in fact frequently interacted with the universe in a detectable way, and that this interaction is an essential part of God’s very existence. If you deny those interactions, you deny the existence of God. All you can do is say, “Well, OK, then I’ll come up with a new concept of God that doesn’t have to interact with the universe.” Unfortunately, in order to accept this new concept of God, you not only have to be willing to believe in something for which there is no evidence, you also have to argue that all past claims as to God’s interactions are false. In other words, everybody else in the long history of humanity believed in the wrong concept of God, but you have finally gotten it right. Well, bully for you, I say!
A skeptic with religous faith is like a PETA supporter who can’t give up his leather shoes. They’re just too comfortable. It has to do with most skeptics being human.
Basically they choose to not apply sound reasoning to their faith because the costs outweigh the benefits. They have narrowed down their vision of god so as to be insignificant to everyday life decisions(low faith cost) but still get a god that gives them eternal payoff. It would be illogical to try and break up that deal. As godzillatemple said, it seems like a stacked version of Pascal’s wager.
The problem is that the payoff is purely mental. I can choose to believe that I’ve won the lottery and will never have to work again, and that would make me very happy, but I’ll be screwed when I quit my job and try to purchase lots of stuff with my Gold Card.
Well TVAA I’m personally incapable of that mental juggling act but the benefits might not all be intangible. Ever have a long drive where the only thing keeping you going was the warm comfy bed at the end?
But what if there is no warm, comfy bed? What if I just imagined that there was a warm, comfy bed and then made myself believe in it so that I’d feel better about the long drive?
No, this is mere wishful thinking. Your definitions may be incorrect, your method of detection of those properties might be flawed, and you simply cannot deny the antecedent in this manner.
We can indeed show that the defined entity does not exist.
And yes, our methods of detection/reasoning might be flawed – but that argument applies equally to all conclusions.
I think your point is that our definition might not match reality in the first place, which is a perfectly good point, but it’s not the one being made in the quote. You’re confusing “asserted to have certain properties” with “defined to have certain properties”.
Or I fail to recognize that there actually is no bed when I arrive and come completely delusional. I think becoming insane and losing touch with reality would be a negative result.
Or I could plop down on the “bed” and find out it was actually a rusty-nail-encrusted sawhorse.
Of course, Aide, we may arbitrarily define whatsoever we choose. But the difference between an arbitrary definition and an “assertion” is slim, if existent.
If we’re discussing an entity that we define as having certain properties, and we later find that those properties are mutually exclusive, we can conclude that the entity we were discussing cannot exist.
If we’re discussing an entity (with its own definition) and we assert that the entity has certain additional properties which we later discover a mutually exclusive, we cannot dismiss the existence of the entity merely on those grounds. The assertion might be correct, in which case the entity is unreal, or the assertion might be false, in which case the entity doesn’t have those properties.
As it stands the thought of the bed is useful during the trip. If you add a whole bunch of delusions after the trip is done that’s not the analogy’s fault.
ps- I didn’t go insane or out of touch with reality when after a long trip I arrived home to a flooded apartment.
Atheist? As soon as one becomes an atheist, one has rejected skepticism, for one has reached a conclusion. As soon as one has reached a conclusion, one has claimed certainty. Certainty and skepticism are opposite.
Can one not simply reveal that their belief-o-meter needle is tilting towards there not being a God without it having to shoot all the way over to certainty? Can I not believe that Liverpool wil not win the Premiership without concluding that Liverpool will not win the Premiership?
Theist, athiest, agnostic, surely all can inquire without having to keep their personal guesses to themselves for evermore?
Are you certain? If you are certain of this claim, what are the criteria of your certainty?
I’ve waded through the tropes, it’s quite an eye-opener. I, at least, was compelled to apply them or admit that I had to admit to rejecting skepticism in order to refuse to apply them at some point or another.
“It’s not practical” means that one has rejected skepticism in favor of pragmatism, but this practice is a severe bout of question-begging–what are the criteria for “practical” and “not practical”? What are the criteria whereby the criteria are arrived at?
Real skepticism seems to be far more than merely saying “There isn’t enough evidence, I actively reach the conclusion that the negation of the premise is true.”
It has to do with most skeptics being human.