Weak Atheism

[Kamehameha34]

Yet there is a POV that maintains that the positive claim that there is a god is so unsupported as to be nonsensical. It doesn't make a positive claim that there are no gods, it says that no evidence has been presented to prove the claim that gods exist. This is my atheistic stance. I cannot claim something doesn't exist when that something hasn't even been shown to be anything more than the work of human imagination.

Right, nonsensical. You're right, saying there's no proof for god isn't enough - all you need to do is say it's ridiculous to drive the point home!

Oh wait..

In most cases only for those who are afraid to rely on logic and common sense.

I'm afraid that it's logic and common sense that led me to that conclusion, Ishmaboy.

[Kamehameha34]

It is totally, completely, utterly useless to default an unsupported claim to unknown. It is far more productive to make an assumption that a said claim is false in complete lack of conclusive evidence.

Like the claim "There is no god"?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Isherwood Yet there is a POV that maintains that the positive claim that there is a god is so unsupported as to be nonsensical. It doesn't make a positive claim that there are no gods, it says that no evidence has been presented to prove the claim that gods exist. This is my atheistic stance. I cannot claim something doesn't exist when that something hasn't even been shown to be anything more than the work of human imagination.

Spot on.

Kame's arguments rely on each claim existing in a vacuum independent of every other claim or established knowledge. Absolutely NO ONE argues this way.

Quote by: Kame Claims don't default to false in the absence of evidence. They start out as unknown.

Incomplete.

We cannot make such a general statement. Only claims which are neutral (don't agree or disagree with anything we already know to be true) are "unknown".

"The Wright brothers used a Boeing 747 as a model for their powered glider" doesn't default to 'unknown'. It's false.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Like the claim "There is no god"?

Not the claim itself. It's more of a conclusion derived by scientific method than a claim in itself. Therefore, it's not something I actively go around saying out loud, its more of an default, assumptive stance I take. The same way I'd react to someone who told me unicorns existed.

[Kamehameha34]

Kame's arguments rely on each claim existing in a vacuum independent of every other claim or established knowledge. Absolutely NO ONE argues this way.

Not true. I'd welcome evidence against, or for a god.

We cannot make such a general statement. Only claims which are neutral (don't agree or disagree with anything we already know to be true) are "unknown". "The Wright brothers used a Boeing 747 as a model for their powered glider" doesn't default to 'unknown'. It's false.

Note I qualified it with "in the absence of evidence". The probability favoring the Wright brothers making an original design over their copying it from a B747 stands as enough evidence to hold that "The Wright brothers had an original design" does not require faith.

We are not as knowledgeable about the origins of our universe.

Not the claim itself. It's more of a conclusion derived by scientific method than a claim in itself. Therefore, it's not something I actively go around saying out loud, its more of an default, assumptive stance I take. The same way I'd react to someone who told me unicorns existed.

Would the claim "There is something in the box on the floor" default to false, by your standards?

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Would the claim "There is something in the box on the floor" default to false, by your standards?

Until I get a look at it, technically, yes.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: pikatore Until I get a look at it, technically, yes.

Then I think our only difference is what we call something that is unproven. You call it false, I call it unknown. We both require evidence to label a claim true, and we both label claims that we know to be false as false.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Then I think our only difference is what we call something that is unproven. You call it false, I call it unknown. We both require evidence to label a claim true, and we both label claims that we know to be false as false.

I don't call it false, i ASSUME it is false. I treat it as false, though it technically is unknown.

You say there are unicorns, I'm not going to go, ooh.. ill keep an eye out for them. I will say, ill believe it when i see it. until then, at least to me anyway, there arent any.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Not true. I'd welcome evidence against, or for a god.

Completely missed the point. I wasn't commenting on evidence against or for a god. I'm talking about claims and having the intellectual honesty to acknowledge them. It takes a considerable degree of dishonesty to declare god as "unknown".

Note I qualified it with "in the absence of evidence". The probability favoring the Wright brothers making an original design over their copying it from a B747 stands as enough evidence to hold that "The Wright brothers had an original design" does not require faith. We are not as knowledgeable about the origins of our universe.

Of course we are.

God cannot just 'appear' and claiming he already existed is a tremendous cop-out. We know that things as immensly powerful / complex as god would have to be are the result of gradual processes with billions of small phases and more than a few anthropic moments.

A designer is never a satisfactory answer because it always requires another designer (or a cop out).

Would the claim "There is something in the box on the floor" default to false, by your standards?

Of course it wouldn't because the word "something" is inclusive of objects that can fit into a box. God is not a something. God is a very specific thing with considerable requirements that are not allowed for by what we know to be true of the universe. So, to amend your statement to make it a proper analogy for god, it would be like stating "The planet Mars (the actual planet itself) is in the box on the floor of my living room in Columbus, OH." That statement, like god, is false.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: pikatore I don't call it false, i ASSUME it is false. I treat it as false, though it technically is unknown. You say there are unicorns, I'm not going to go, ooh.. ill keep an eye out for them. I will say, ill believe it when i see it. until then, at least to me anyway, there arent any.

Then the issue is in epistemological standards, or standards of knowledge.

One more question, how would you treat it as false?

Would you use "there is no god" as a premise in a proof?

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Then the issue is in epistemological standards, or standards of knowledge.

....?! No, it isn't. It's just common sense and reasoning.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 One more question, how would you treat it as false?

By not thinking about it, by assuming it doesn't exist.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Would you use "there is no god" as a premise in a proof?

I could quite easily do that. Though I've never really needed to.

[Kamehameha34]

Completely missed the point. I wasn't commenting on evidence against or for a god. I'm talking about claims and having the intellectual honesty to acknowledge them. It takes a considerable degree of dishonesty to declare god as "unknown".

Do you know if there is a god?

God cannot just 'appear' and claiming he already existed is a tremendous cop-out. We know that things as immensly powerful / complex as god would have to be are the result of gradual processes with billions of small phases and more than a few anthropic moments.

Couldn't the existence of such a being be facilitated by another universe? We know other universes to exist, according to M theory. Haven't American scientists toyed with the idea of recreating our big bang?

Of course it wouldn't because the word "something" is inclusive of objects that can fit into a box.

Not necessarily. We don't know if the box is hollow, or if the sides are so thick that it resembles a solid block. In this situation, there are no knowns or averages to adhere to - for analogicality's sake.

God is a very specific thing with considerable requirements that are not allowed for by what we know to be true of the universe.

I'm operating off of a different definition of god - one that doesn't require the physically impossible creation of matter and energy.

[Kamehameha34]

No, it isn't. It's just common sense and reasoning.

No, it's epistemology. You claim that a lack of evidence for something is enough to treat it as false, and I claim that you can't treat it as any more than unknown.

I could quite easily do that. Though I've never really needed to.

So if a conclusion were dependent on the premise "God does not exist", then that fact wouldn't be enough to make the proof inconclusive?

If so, what's the difference between your position and strong atheism?

[5010]

To assume truth in the unknown is like a man who digs for treasure in a certain spot on a hunch. To assume the chance of either is like a man who buys a metal detector and sweeps an area in case there might be treasure there. To assume false is like a man who doesn't even go to that beach.

The assumption of either true or false in the unknown is the motivation for exploration. Consider the methodology of Edison vs Tesla. Edison's inventions required exhaustive random trial and error, while Tesla approached from the limits of theory derived from preexisting data. Which was more productive? Who was more successful?

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No, it's epistemology. You claim that a lack of evidence for something is enough to treat it as false, and I claim that you can't treat it as any more than unknown.

Well, just don't go into the field of science, you'll drive everyone up the wall.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 So if a conclusion were dependent on the premise "God does not exist", then that fact wouldn't be enough to make the proof inconclusive?

....?! what??!!?

Quote by: Kamehameha34 If so, what's the difference between your position and strong atheism?

ive already explained it. you are yet to make a cohesive point, that in turn makes that question valid.

[Jack]

I'm operating off of a different definition of god

Then you shouldn't engage in these debates. If you want to keep redefining your concept of god to avoid the pitfalls common gods suffer then you're either imagining your own concept of god (which we don't know thus cannot address) or just trying to be elusive.
We agreed a long time ago to either go on the presumption that in the U.S. we generally mean the Christian god when discussing gods, or the member had to specify which god they were discussing. You've done neither.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Isherwood Then you shouldn't engage in these debates. If you want to keep redefining your concept of god to avoid the pitfalls common gods suffer then you're either imagining your own concept of god (which we don't know thus cannot address) or just trying to be elusive. We agreed a long time ago to either go on the presumption that in the U.S. we generally mean the Christian god when discussing gods, or the member had to specify which god they were discussing. You've done neither.

Zhavric knows well enough the definition I'm operating on. I've defined "god" once.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Zhavric knows well enough the definition I'm operating on. I've defined "god" once.

Allow ME, as the OP guy, to tell you that your alternative definitions are not welcome in this thread. I don't like people hijacking the words ive used for different means. Isherwood's definition is adequate, please use that one.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: pikatore Well, just don't go into the field of science, you'll drive everyone up the wall. ....?! what??!!? ive already explained it. you are yet to make a cohesive point, that in turn makes that question valid.

This was disappointing. This was an attempt to shrink my ignore list.

Oh well. I accept your concession, by the way. That's essentially what you do when you start to give "summaries" of what you think the argument was.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: pikatore Allow ME, as the OP guy, to tell you that your alternative definitions are not welcome in this thread. I don't like people hijacking the words ive used for different means. Isherwood's definition is adequate, please use that one.

Fine. A tri-omni god can not exist. Neither can flying purple elephants, or square circles. Only unreasonable religious zealots would say otherwise.

What's the point?