Russell's Teapot

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 All the analogy establishes is that claims don't default to true.

Bingo! Now take that and apply it to religion.

[Gods_Mercenary]

O.K., applying, God's existance is unknown!

[pikatore]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary O.K., applying, God's existance is unknown!

Applying, the whole god thing could have (and within reason, was most likely to) been simply a fabrication by humans, and in today's world, believed in by so many people, that it has become fact to many people today.

The fact that that line of events is very plausible - after all, the greatest deciever known to man is himself - places even more doubt in my mind of a god.

That's how i interpret it.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Sure, but even reasonable theists have doubt, if they've never questioned then I'll carefully edge across the room, I've met priests who've said that they've doubted God's existance at points in their lives.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary O.K., applying, God's existance is unknown!

Incomplete.

The lack of evidence for god and the outlandish nature of the claim of god renders the claim false.

The ability to conceptualize an entity or phenomenon does not establish that entity or phenomenon as possible. It takes evidence.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Zhavric The ability to conceptualize an entity or phenomenon does not establish that entity or phenomenon as possible. It takes evidence.

Unless you take it all on faith because it feels good, or refuse to make up your mind, which amounts to exactly the same thing.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Why, I assume that it is more likely that God does not exist, but don't wanna rule out that somewhere in the universe a God figure does exist. This may reject the christian God, but considering the thousands of other God ideas out there, I'm not gonna call myself atheist.

[Zhavric]

What possibilities?

Your ability to conceptualize other possibilities doesn't evidence them as true or possible. It takes evidence.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I don't conceptualize, well, that's not completely correct, I'll muse, but nothing serious. Certainly it doesn't make them true or possible, but they aren't proven false either, as you said, there's no reason to base anything on a possiblility, in action you should assume it's false, but philosophically I say it is unknown.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I don't conceptualize, well, that's not completely correct, I'll muse, but nothing serious. Certainly it doesn't make them true or possible, but they aren't proven false either, as you said, there's no reason to base anything on a possiblility, in action you should assume it's false, but philosophically I say it is unknown.

Anything as outlandish, contrived and unsupported as god is false. Not unknown. Your ability to 'muse' something as possible does not prove it's possible.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Agreed, which is why I take the stance unknown, I don't know if it's possible.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Agreed, which is why I take the stance unknown, I don't know if it's possible.

If you don't know if something is possible, you cannot assume the positive with any intellectual honesty. You must assume a negative until evidence comes along.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I take between positive and negative, unknown, I assume the negative is probable for now, but cede that new evicence may come along proving a God does exist, however unlikely. It may be something close to atheism, but I dont like the term, it implies surety, which I don't have.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary It may be something close to atheism, but I dont like the term, it implies surety, which I don't have.

The surety of atheism is that no credible evidence exists for god and that there's absolutely no difference between unevidenced and not real.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Ahh, I disagree on the last point, you have no evidence I am male, yet I am. (excluding places where I'vs stated I am, I could be lying.)

[RickSp]

Quote by: Zhavric The surety of atheism is that no credible evidence exists for god and that there's absolutely no difference between unevidenced and not real.

If the theists and agnostics used the same epistemological criteria for making decisions in day to day life that they apply to gods and teapots, no decision would ever be possible.

The light is green. Should I cross the street or would crossing the street anger an unseen, unnamed diety? There is zero evidence to suggest that it would but "the absense of evidence is not the evidence of absence." Oh damn, the light changed again. And on and on and on.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Ahh, I disagree on the last point, you have no evidence I am male, yet I am. (excluding places where I'vs stated I am, I could be lying.)

*sigh*

Yes, because the burden of proof for proving the gender of a message board poster is comparable to the burden for proving god / not god.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: RickSp If the theists and agnostics used the same epistemological criteria for making decisions in day to day life that they apply to gods and teapots, no decision would ever be possible. The light is green. Should I cross the street or would crossing the street anger an unseen, unnamed diety? There is zero evidence to suggest that it would but "the absense of evidence is not the evidence of absence." Oh damn, the light changed again. And on and on and on.

Pointworthy.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Zhavric *sigh* Yes, because the burden of proof for proving the gender of a message board poster is comparable to the burden for proving god / not god.

Why not? And you applied that reasoning to all things, not just God, why should God have a special place, doesn't sound like good logic to me, to place two different phenomena on different planes of reason, just because one's more significant than the other.

I'm a male-Unevidenced, but true

God exists-Unevidenced, but?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Why not? And you applied that reasoning to all things, not just God, why should God have a special place, doesn't sound like good logic to me, to place two different phenomena on different planes of reason, just because one's more significant than the other. I'm a male-Unevidenced, but true God exists-Unevidenced, but?

The is what I call the 'know-nothing' stance. It posits that we should ignore all the information we do know in favor of a 50-50 chance of real / not real (or male / not male in this case).

We know that males exist.

We know that males are usually the ones who post to message boards.

We know that you haven't posted anything to suggest you're female and you've several times hinted that you're male (or outright stated it).

The know-nothing stance is intellectually bankrupt. It's just another flavor of argument from ignorance.