[QUOTE=Pochacco]
However, when picking among competing models, it’s best to avoid ones that contain unnecessary entities.
[/QUOTE]
I think that’s debatable for certain people. Believing in unproven entities can be a powerful form of coping with tragedy.
Take for instance a mother who grieves the loss of a child. An unproven belief that the child is in a “heaven” and she may one day be reunited with them may be something she needs to keep her sanity and move on with her life.
Without her security-blanket/teddy-bear/god life may become unbearable to the point of clinical depression or suicide.
[QUOTE=Eben]
Except that gods do add something to the model.
[/QUOTE]
Okay. I should have said “They add nothing **necessary ** to the model.” I will grant you that believing in unnecessary entities can be entertaining, charming, and/or aesthetically or emotionally pleasing.
None of the evidence you’ve provided for P existing holds up/you have provided no evidence for P
therefore we have no reason to suppose P exists.
1) None of the evidence you've provided for P not existing holds up/you have provided no evidence for not P
2) therefore we have no reason to suppose P does not exists.
I think both conclusions are flawed as both are beliefs and not facts. Both are hypotheses, neither are law.
[/QUOTE]
Belief my ass, the first set of statements is the foundation of scientific thought, the second set is meaningless. They are not equal.
[QUOTE=Hampshire]
It’s about as logical as an arguement about whether the contestant on Deal or No Deal picked the million dollar case.
Theist- I believe I have the million dollar case.
Atheist- You have done nothing to show or prove you have it, therefore you don’t have it.
Agnostic- I don’t know, you don’t know, we don’t know.
[/QUOTE]
My only suggestion would be to change the atheist view to the following:
Atheist- You have done nothing to show or prove you have it, therefore you have no way of knowing if you have it.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
By the fact that I and other people have had dreams and have beliefs as well.
[/quote]
That dodges the question, though. How do I prove to you that I dreamed specifically about where I used to work?
Believe it or not, you can contradict a claim without calling someone a liar. You could cite, for example, false memory.
Whose word are you taking about their accuracy? What scientific tests have you conducted for yourself in everything from physics to biology?
So maybe you’re a bot. We don’t need you as a human entity to explain the appearance of text on the screen.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
So maybe you’re a bot. We don’t need you as a human entity to explain the appearance of text on the screen.
[/QUOTE]
An unreasonable assumption. Der Trihs’s postings are far too sophisticated for any current A.I. technology. To believe that he’s a bot you must postulate a vast secret research program that has achieved a level of A.I. far beyond that which is known to the general public. Even if such a program existed, why would it be used to post to this message board?
While we can’t PROVE that he isn’t a bot, it’s an extremely unlikely hypothesis.
And that’s the atheist position on God. We can’t prove he doesn’t exist. He’s just an extremely unlikely hypothesis.
More fruitful how? If our concern is the truth, then this is not a satisfactory resolution. And despite what some may say, there is certainly a truth to be arrived at.
[/QUOTE]
The existence of god cannot be proved or disproved, so the only truth which can can be arrived at is that there is a difference in beliefs. Since their exists a difference then we should be more fruitful in determining how we can coexist.
[QUOTE=focusonz]
The existence of god cannot be proved or disproved, so the only truth which can can be arrived at is that there is a difference in beliefs.
[/QUOTE]
NOTHING about the real world can be proved or disproved. You can’t prove that the sun rose this morning. You can’t prove that you’re not a brain in a jar. So according to your logic we should treat ALL beliefs equally.
Are you really sure you want to construct a metaphysical system that puts crystals and vaccines on equal footing? After all we can’t PROVE that crystals don’t prevent diseases, and we can’t PROVE that vaccines do … .
[QUOTE=focusonz]
The existence of god cannot be proved or disproved, so the only truth which can can be arrived at is that there is a difference in beliefs. Since their exists a difference then we should be more fruitful in determining how we can coexist.
[/QUOTE]
Theories are not equal by virtue of the fact they exist. The Ku Klux Klan’s opinion is not valid and I feel no compulsion to coexist with them.
[QUOTE=Pochacco]
An unreasonable assumption. Der Trihs’s postings are far too sophisticated for any current A.I. technology. To believe that he’s a bot you must postulate a vast secret research program that has achieved a level of A.I. far beyond that which is known to the general public. Even if such a program existed, why would it be used to post to this message board?
While we can’t PROVE that he isn’t a bot, it’s an extremely unlikely hypothesis.
And that’s the atheist position on God. We can’t prove he doesn’t exist. He’s just an extremely unlikely hypothesis.
[/QUOTE]
Sure. I understand. As I’ve told many atheists, I wouldn’t believe if I were in your shoes either. I used to be an atheist myself.
But I don’t need to resort to bots to doubt Der Trihs. Maybe he simply isn’t who he says he is. His arguments are so weak, so extreme, and often so insulting that the impression I get isn’t that he doesn’t believe in God, but rather that he does believe in God but hates Him.
[QUOTE=Sitnam]
Now who’s dodging.
[/QUOTE]
What? What are you talking about? You asked me whether I demanded proof that the mother of Jesus was born without sin. And I’m saying that I don’t even care about it.
[QUOTE=focusonz]
Is the same argument, given the view on the other side.
None of the evidence you’ve provided for P **not **existing holds up/you have provided no evidence for not P
therefore we have no reason to suppose P does not exists.
Why let it go down at all? The debate (of gods existence) is a waste of great minds on both sides. The debate on how to accommodate both points of view and embrace the pluralism would be more fruitful.
[/QUOTE]
But let’s say that the question wasn’t about your deity-of-choice, but rather, Santa Claus.
Let’s say that the majority of people in the “West” believed in Santa Claus and only a minority were clear aSANTA-ists. Belief in Mr. Claus provided much good feeling and only a handful of killjoys wanted to “advance society” past such wonderful piety and into the real world.
Would you still advocate for your pluralistic detente, based on the argument that there is no proof that such a man could not be immortal, possess super-speed and an animal-propelled vehicle to match, have a practical omniscience, and so on?
(Just another post-SANTA-ist in a bitter, cynical world.)
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Sure. I understand. As I’ve told many atheists, I wouldn’t believe if I were in your shoes either. I used to be an atheist myself.
[/QUOTE]
And frankly, I have no quarrel with theists who are willing to acknowledge the unreasonableness of their position: “I have no REASON to believe, and yet I still do.”
The world is an imperfect place and we all have imperfect knowledge of it. I’m an atheist but I’m willing to acknowlege that I believe many things that I only have a gut feeling are true. It would be unfair to fail to extend the same courtesy to theists.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
What? What are you talking about? You asked me whether I demanded proof that the mother of Jesus was born without sin. And I’m saying that I don’t even care about it.
[/QUOTE]
In your mothers womb you didn’t believe in a god, now you do, there was a moment in your life when you made that change and at that moment you didn’t need proof. I don’t really care what particular space genie my question applies to.
