Frankly, the content of a small but significant percentage of SDMB posts provides quite sufficient evidence to validate this theory – Occam’s Razor calls for the existence of monkeys flying out of someone’s butt as the minimum-entities solution to the question of where such gibberish might come from! 
An assertion that something you claim is measurable, detectable, exists in the face of a lack of evidence that it does can be ridiculed on the basis that it has no evidentiary support. Thus, an assertion that the moon is made of green cheese can be ridiculed, since we can go to the moon and find out that it is, in fact, made of rock, not green cheese (and have done so).
An assertion that “God” exists is not measurable. Therefore, it cannot be ridiculed because the likelihood of it being true is unknowable. We cannot assign it any probability factor, since there is nothing to compute the probabilities on.
But you cannot really hypothesize that God exists, because a hypothesis is an idea that is intended to be tested on its merits. Positing the existence of “God” without allowing a way that can be tested is not making a hypothesis.
You point to the fossil in the museum and assert that the evidence shows that it is 250 million years old, and that it comes from a species that evolved from the one that gave you THAT fossil across the room. I point to the fossil and assert that “God” simply created the world with the fossil intact, designed in such a way that it appears to be 250 million years old, evolved from THAT species over there. Who is right? Who can know? The assertions are not testable. The first assertion at least has the advantage of allowing us to predict other results, which is the purpose of science. But you cannot ridicule my assertion; at best, you can simply shrug and say, “I disagree.”
You make this assertion with a straight face, which is where I wonder about you.
God, as typically described, exists outside of our supposed universe. Thus, physical laws do not apply. “God” can do what he/she/it/they wants, without being ruled by the so called “laws” of physics, because those “laws” after all are nothing more than tested hypotheses that we have constructed to explain what we see around us.
Suppose I assert that, nightly, God talks to me? Prove that I am wrong.
Suppose I assert that I, and only I, have observed otherwise unexplainable phenomena that I ascribe to God. Prove that I am wrong.
What you are really saying is: I see no evidence of this supposed God. Therefore, absent some evidence that God exists, I prefer not to speculate on, let alone accept, the existence of such an entity. This is a very practical approach. For you, it may even be the “right” approach. For others, it’s not what they prefer to do.
Ah, but all religions talk about some specific god, and once they tell us what that god was supposed to have done, then we can quite happily deny it. I have no problem denying any of the Western gods I know something about and even sob the FSM. Bring 'em on - Zeus, Odin, Yahweh, Prince Philip. I’ll deny them all. If someone presents that old higher being who in some way is responsible for it all but keeps so far away from us that you can’t distinguish him existing from not existing, I’ll say I can’t disprove or deny such an unfalsifiable thing, but only a blockhead would change his or her actions in response to its potential existence.
See the difference between not denying a potential god and denying a religion?
if God stayed out of our universe, he’d be unobservable and would be equivalent to not existing. If, however, you claim he appeared as a ball of fire, or had a son, or wrestled Jacob, then he should have left a measurable trace. Seeing none, we can dismiss these claims.
Surely I don’t have to lecture you on the burden of proof. :eek:
If someone claims to have chatted with god, or a space alien, or a whatever, and wants to be believed, all they have to do is to ask this entity for information not known to mankind, which can be verified. I like to tell people to ask about P=NP, but a cure for AIDS would work also. If God knows nothing more than wikipedia, I think we can dismiss him quite handily. God appears to have inspired the writer of Matthew to mistranslate young girl for virgin. Pretty stupid god, eh?
Yes, I can ridicule it. I can say that it has no evidence for it being true, or even being possible. I can also point out that whenever religion has made an actual, checkable claim it’s nearly always been wrong, so the fact that your claim invokes God is in practical terms evidence against it.
But God supposedly intervenes in this universe where those laws apply. And those same laws also let us say that some phenomenon we haven’t seen is possible, which means that putting God outside of them is another reason to disbelieve in him. And, it’s also a clearly dishonest argument designed to get God beyond the eyes of skeptics.
The burden of proof is on you to prove those claims right. And as I just said, the fact that those are religious claims is evidence against them, and also means that your burden of proof is higher since the word of a believer is worthless on anything touching his or her faith.
No, it’s the right approach for anyone who is not a fool.
Where, exactly, is “outside of our supposed universe”? Do you really believe that adding yet another undefined factor to an already undefined entity brings definition to that entity?
It’s such a silly distinction to make. It’s a distinction you wouldn’t make on any other subject. If I said in a GQ thread that I’m certain the moon isn’t made of green cheese you wouldn’t bat an eyelid. If someone called me close-minded they would be laughed out the door.
The thing is, I know it’s a trap. Probably not intentional from you, but a trap none the less. I could concede that there is hypothetically a microscopic possibility that some version of a god could theoretically a exist. A chance so small there aren’t enough zeroes in the universe to express it. Once I say that, a chorus of theists will pop up “AH HA, so you admit it! Trallalalala. Science doesn’t have all the answers”. The only reason they always want to introduce silly words like “absolute” is to create an opening.
I’ll say this: I’m certain there is no god. But if the evidence ever changes I’ll reconsider my position at once.
I have the cynical suspicion that this “strong/weak atheist & strong/weak agnostic” classification scheme is being pushed by the theists under the divide and conquer theory. Get all the unbelievers to argue among themselves and make them even weaker.
Hey…it worked for the believers! They must figure it’s their best shot.
Right, because Diogenes is a theist.
And if it resides outside our universe, how does anyone know it’s there? Are we talking god telepathy now?
And do you think that he originated the idea?
I don’t think it’s a theist plot. It’s a genuine distinction of position. It’s also a defense against the strawman equivalency so many religionists try to make in asserting that atheism is belief in itself, that it relies on “faith,” that it’s a religion in itself, etc.
I think it’s only been devised to counter the latter. We wouldn’t make the distinction of position if dishonest believers didn’t keep the strawmen coming–just as we don’t distinguish between flavors of disbelief in leprechauns.
The moon landing is a single event with a preponderance of evidence. The God of the Bible is reasonably well defined also, and as I said I’m sure that he doesn’t exist. The problem is that many people have a limited definition of god as being the one they heard about in Sunday School.
Consider alien intelligent life. I’m sure they have never shown up, at least not in historical time. I’m also pretty sure that they exist somewhere in this galaxy. But let’s pick a hypothetical star that is like the sun. Are you sure there are no aliens there? I’m sure that you aren’t sure there are. If you are sure there aren’t any, then how could we be pretty certain that alien life exists anywhere if we are sure it doesn’t exist around each star we enumerate.
Similarly, I believe there are no gods anywhere, but I don’t know it.
BTW, after my horrendous experience in a theory of knowledge class, I don’t do absolute certainty. Proof in a court of law sense is good enough for me in these affairs, so I do think we can prove the moon isn’t made out of green cheese.
<Elmer Fudd> Be vewy vewy quiet. There’s that wascally deity. There he is, doing miwacles, but make any noise and he pops right out of the universe. </Elmer>
Deity, striking Elmer with a lightning bolt: Ain’t I a stinker.
And still the question: Why is proof in a court of law sense good enough for the moon, but not good enough for god?
The two hypotheticals aren’t really the same. We don’t have any evidence of aliens being around, but we DO have evidence they are possible ( namely ourselves ). We not only have no evidence for gods; we have no evidence they are possible, and what evidence we do have is that they are NOT possible ( thus the modern attempts to claim it/they are outside the universe ). The two claims aren’t even in the same league when it comes to plausibility.
This cracked me up! Thanks for making my day!