Does God exist? (2 Viewers)

[KFunk]

Plus, it doesn't really say all that much since I honestly can't help but see it as a psychological description. Under that definition a huge number of things could be named atheists - newborn babies, dogs and even inanimate objects such as pencils and pens. Does their lack of belief in God also make them atheists?

This is just a semantic issue related to the looseness of the definition. Naturally the agnostic label, if defined through non-belief, should only be applied to beings capable of belief in the first place. If it makes it tighter you could always replace 'lack of belief' (which, as you have pointed out, applies equally well to stones and microbes, but only in the uninteresting way in which a lot of things are also non-raccoon) with 'non-acceptance' which implies an action on the part of a belief-capable, cognisant individual.

Surely if there is even the possibility that God exists, that alone warrants the effort to try and uncover the truth of the matter.

Sure, but until then one ought to remain agnostic.

 

[Garygaz]

Quick interjection question.

So Big Bang - originated from energy which has been existent for eternity - this energy creating original matter which then began the process of the big bang (in simple terms). So if it is considered that energy is infinite, why at the particular point in time was matter and subsequently the big bang created? If it has been around for infinitely long, what caused the process to start then as opposed to the eternity before it?

 

[KFunk]

I don't know (perhaps it has happened before - maybe even an infinite number of times).

 

[Garygaz]

I guess I'll die an agnostic, too many questions about the origins of everything. :'(

 

[Enteebee]

So if it is considered that energy is infinite, why at the particular point in time was matter and subsequently the big bang created? If it has been around for infinitely long, what caused the process to start then as opposed to the eternity before it?

I would like to hear your proposal for how we have causation outside of time. Apparently they exist, but I have trouble understanding them (perhaps because my working definition of time almost necessitates causation being associated with time) if you believe we need something at least time-like in order to facilitate time then your question becomes silly. As Stephen hawking said that's like asking "What's north of the north pole?"

 

[KFunk]

As Stephen hawking said that's like asking "What's north of the north pole?"

This makes sense if we posit that there was a beginning of time. You can define north as the direction along the shortest line between one's position and the north pole. At the north pole there is no line (as two points are required) and so the definition breaks down. I assume the geometry is similar for point- (that is, beginning-) relative time.

However, 'what was before the big bang?' is still a sensible question if we don't assume time to have started with the big bang. I'm no physicist so I'm not sure what the current reasoning on this issue is. The LHC will be put through its paces in a few days - perhaps we'll have more to work with once the institution that is academic physics has had its way with the data.

 

[Enteebee]

However, 'what was before the big bang?' is still a sensible question if we don't assume time to have started with the big bang. I'm no physicist so I'm not sure what the current reasoning on this issue is.

As I understand, yes, a lot of work is being done into time before time, though obviously it's all fairly disputed at the moment. Either way though my main purpose whenever I bring such things up is merely to show that there are other possible logical answers... even if there is a time before the big bang, if there was a beginning of some sort of ultimate time (which is essentially the theory many theists use to base their idea that the beginning must have been god) then we have a logical out and we don't need God. If it turns out perhaps in some sense all existence is eternal or circular then we don't need God either.

 

[BradCube]

Firstly enteebee, I must thank you gratuitously for the way you have replied to my posts. What a pleasant change on these forums!

I think it's silly to deny this definition, by doing so you basically deny the right for any thinking individual to assert something as existing/not existing. There are very few considered individuals out there that claim to know anything with 100% certainty. If I throw 100,000 reindeer off a building this doesn't mean I know for certain that they do not fly... but I will wear the tag of a a-flying-reindeerist. Am I forever to hold myself as agnostic on this matter? For common-language purposes I do not believe reindeer can fly. Agnosticism is an epistemological position.

When in your opinion can we claim that something doesn't exist?

I think you may have mistunderstood what I am saying. I am not trying to say that no one should claim to believe/not believe in a particular thing. What I am trying to address is that saying that lacking a belief in something is not really a position at all - and not really one that can be argued for or against.

Whilst the strong atheist, lacks the belief in God, they are claiming that God does not exist and so their lack of belief makes perfect rational sense.

However, the person that just says "I lack belief in God" (or has non-acceptance of the belief in God) with no real claim behind it comes no where near to the same position as the strong atheist. In fact (as we have seen) this same statement can be both applied to atheists, agnostics and new born babies alike. It is because of this that I struggle to to see why we should characterize someone solely with a lack of acceptance/belief in God as an atheist.

You of course are justified in claiming that reindeer do not fly - and certainly you would also lack belief that reindeer fly if you held this position. However, the lack of belief alone does not mean that you claim that reindeer don't fly (as the newborn baby also has a lack of belief in the ability of these reindeer). So in this we have to be careful because you can rationally claim whatever ever you like if you have sufficient reasoning to do so (ie. dropping 100,000 reindeer of a building) but simply claiming lack of belief is not such a sufficient reason.

The problem is that there's a very big difference between someone who lacks disbelief in god and someone who believes in god. Someone who lacks disbelief can not accept jesus or pray to any god or believe they're going to heaven when they die. It is a much larger divide than the divide between someone who doesn't believe in god and someone who lacks a belief in god, both of these opinions seem to

Here, I think you are actually agreeing with me. Like you have pointed out, there is a very big difference between the theist and the agnostic in this matter, just as I have said there is between the strong atheist and the agnostic. For the theist doesn't simply claim a lack of disbelief in God (even though they do have this), they claim that God does exist! What a remarkable difference!

Similarly, I don't see why this same difference should not be drawn between the strong atheist and the agnostic. The strong atheist doesn't simply claim a lack of belief in God (although they also posses this), they claim that God does not exist!

To take the example away from God... let's use the analogy of the tooth fairy. If someone believes in the tooth fairy, they are a very different animal from someone who claims they can't prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist (i.e. Me). Whereas someone who doesn't believe the tooth fairy exists isn't that far away at all from someone who believes we can't prove the tooth fairy exists.

This is exactly what I am saying!
The person who lacks belief in the tooth fairy is so close to the same belief as the person who believes we can't prove the existence of tooth fairies that they are the same person. For of course the person who believes we can't prove the tooth fairies existence lacks belief in the existence of tooth fairies! Again though, this is a strikingly different position from the person who says tooth fairies do not exist. For while they too lack belief in tooth fairies, surely they must have a reason for their claim?

In fact I would say that as there appears to be no way to demonstrate that something does not exist, to claim to be AS YET unable to prove something does exist is in practical terms exactly the same as claiming something does not exist.

Had to read that a few times to understand what you were saying! ha ha.

Unfortunately it looks as though as though our paths diverge once again here. As the saying goes, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Lets look at this from a different perspective. Lets imagine that you were convicted of murdering someone. Now you yourself know that you have not committed such a crime (and you have no reason to doubt your own memory faculties). Unfortunately, all the evidence points to suggest that you have in fact committed the crime - even though you did not. Now lets substitute your innocence in with this logic. If you are unable to demonstrate or prove that you are innocent, is this the same as claiming you are guilty? Far from it.

In general people do not mean anything more, unless they believe there is a way to prove something definitely does not exist... in which case I'd like to hear from them.

But absolute proof is not necessary to make a claim. The theist and the strong atheist do it all the time - hence why faith is necessary for both parties.

The same is true for God.

Well, I just don't think this is true. We see many of the things we should expect to find if God does exist. The physical universe and everything in it is a pretty good starting point I would have thought. I meanly surely it is these things which cause us to even consider the possibility of a God?

This doesn't matter and I'm not sure if it's right anyway.

Well to me this certainly matters, as it explains why I don't care whether fairies exist, but do very much care if God exists.

You've still yet to provide a solid reason why I shouldn't dismiss God for the same reason as fairies, until you produce your evidence or whatever... but I thought you were agreeing with KFunk's statement?

I feel that I have provided a reasonable rebuttal of your points here, but to answer your main question, I do still agree with KFunk's statement. This is because he is endorsing an agnostic position when someone is using lack of evidence as a proof for atheism.

 

[BradCube]

This is just a semantic issue related to the looseness of the definition. Naturally the agnostic label, if defined through non-belief, should only be applied to beings capable of belief in the first place. If it makes it tighter you could always replace 'lack of belief' (which, as you have pointed out, applies equally well to stones and microbes, but only in the uninteresting way in which a lot of things are also non-raccoon) with 'non-acceptance' which implies an action on the part of a belief-capable, cognisant individual.

This new definition certainly helps out the agnostic position, although I don't really think that it does too much for the weak atheist (to whom I was mainly directing my criticism). In fact, if anything I think this shows my point to hold even when under this tighter definition of agnosticism since it equally applies to the weak and strong atheist.

Sure, but until then one ought to remain agnostic.

Agreed here

 

[BradCube]

Quick interjection question.

So Big Bang - originated from energy which has been existent for eternity - this energy creating original matter which then began the process of the big bang (in simple terms). So if it is considered that energy is infinite, why at the particular point in time was matter and subsequently the big bang created? If it has been around for infinitely long, what caused the process to start then as opposed to the eternity before it?

It was my understanding that the big bang implied that there was nothing physical prior to it's beginning (under the standard definition anyway).

As you have pointed out, this raises the question of why anything at all began to exist at the point that it did. Especially since before time, normal forms of causation do not seem to apply. This is why theists propose the cause of the universe to be a timeless immaterial being - God.

 

[BradCube]

I would like to hear your proposal for how we have causation outside of time. Apparently they exist, but I have trouble understanding them (perhaps because my working definition of time almost necessitates causation being associated with time) if you believe we need something at least time-like in order to facilitate time then your question becomes silly. As Stephen hawking said that's like asking "What's north of the north pole?"

If you are looking from a theistic perspective, the conclusion I have reached so far is that the first action of God (the creation of the universe) necessitates the beginning of time. Causation cannot exist cannot exist outside of time, but it can exist simultaneously with time's inception.

... even if there is a time before the big bang, if there was a beginning of some sort of ultimate time (which is essentially the theory many theists use to base their idea that the beginning must have been god) then we have a logical out and we don't need God.

Re-read this a few times and I'm not understanding your point here. Where is the logical out? Could you elaborate please?

If it turns out perhaps in some sense all existence is eternal or circular then we don't need God either.

Now this I am familiar with an understand. I suppose it is for this reason, so many theories that propose an eternal universe have popped up over the last century.

 

[Enteebee]

However, the person that just says "I lack belief in God" (or has non-acceptance of the belief in God) with no real claim behind it comes no where near to the same position as the strong atheist. In fact (as we have seen) this same statement can be both applied to atheists, agnostics and new born babies alike. It is because of this that I struggle to to see why we should characterize someone solely with a lack of acceptance/belief in God as an atheist.

Because in claiming to be agnostic they are merely claiming to not have full knowledge. It's a philosophical position which leaves me also saying that ultimately I'm a Santa Claus agnostic. If you think this makes me any less of a non-believer in Santa Claus than someone who says "Santa Claus does not exist" you are wrong. There is no difference between my agnosticism in regard to Santa Claus or in regard to God, it is based off the sheer fact that we cannot possibly argue for the existence of something which is possibly (through magic) outside of the realm of rational/empirical inquiry.

You of course are justified in claiming that reindeer do not fly - and certainly you would also lack belief that reindeer fly if you held this position.

How am I any more justified to dismiss the existence of flying reindeer than I am God?

So in this we have to be careful because you can rationally claim whatever ever you like if you have sufficient reasoning to do so (ie. dropping 100,000 reindeer of a building)

The point of my example was to show that such experiments are ultimately pointless when you're dealing with the potential for magic. Even by throwing 100,000 reindeer off a building it would just prove that 100,000 reindeer had not flown on that day and had fallen to their deaths. It could not prove that they nor any other reindeer do not have magic powers to fly.

If it can then I propose that I'll burn bibles, if god doesn't shoot me with a bolt of lightning then I'm justified in saying God doesn't exist. But you'll say "OH God doesn't work that way", well maybe flying reindeer don't work the way of throwing them off buildings either?

Similarly, I don't see why this same difference should not be drawn between the strong atheist and the agnostic. The strong atheist doesn't simply claim a lack of belief in God (although they also posses this), they claim that God does not exist!

I'm not really sure if there would be many strong atheists. I'd like to see examples of these people whom claim to have 100% foolproof knowledge (which is all that a lot of agnostics are denying). I'd say that even those that claim '100% God does not exist' are just using common non-philosophical terms... if you introduced them to the ideas of agnosticism they'd probably accept "well no, I don't know for certain" - This makes them an agnostic.


How would you go about proving that something does not exist? I'm willing to accept that ultimately absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence... but I'm also unwilling to seriously consider things which have no evidence or strong logic as yet to be in existence. As far as I'm concerned, they do not exist, they may in the future be found to exist, but not yet.

----IMO the important part of the discussion----

Had to read that a few times to understand what you were saying! ha ha.

Unfortunately it looks as though as though our paths diverge once again here. As the saying goes, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Lets look at this from a different perspective. Lets imagine that you were convicted of murdering someone. Now you yourself know that you have not committed such a crime (and you have no reason to doubt your own memory faculties). Unfortunately, all the evidence points to suggest that you have in fact committed the crime - even though you did not. Now lets substitute your innocence in with this logic. If you are unable to demonstrate or prove that you are innocent, is this the same as claiming you are guilty? Far from it.

As for you example, no, not being able to prove your innocence doesn't mean you're claiming you're guilty - I'd like to hear the exact relevance.

But absolute proof is not necessary to make a claim. The theist and the strong atheist do it all the time - hence why faith is necessary for both parties.

I AGREE that we're not being 100% logical all the time. I make the jump to say that things which have no evidence for their existence may as well not exist until there is evidence for them. This is 'faith' if you want to call it that, but I am consistent.

In order for there to be equivalence between my position and yours you would need to have a positive belief in everything which has no evidence.

Well, I just don't think this is true. We see many of the things we should expect to find if God does exist. The physical universe and everything in it is a pretty good starting point I would have thought. I meanly surely it is these things which cause us to even consider the possibility of a God?

If you think you have positive evidence for the existence of God then why even claim agnostics have good arguments? The arguments with you lay at the pillar of your positive evidence. I do not believe you have it nor can you demonstrate it at a level beyond that which anyone who believes in any supernatural entity will do.

Well to me this certainly matters, as it explains why I don't care whether fairies exist, but do very much care if God exists.

I'm sure it matters to you, but the fact that you're dismissive of fairies because they're of no significance in your life still doesn't matter. What you should care about is the truth, whether that truth matters to you or not. I might not particularly care whether X is true, but if my reasoning for not believing in it comes into conflict with my reasoning for believing in something else I'd examine it.

Re-read this a few times and I'm not understanding your point here. Where is the logical out? Could you elaborate please?

If in some sense there is an 'ultimate time' that began all time then we could quite easily say that to ask what came before that is silly because it's like asking what's north of the north pole...

It means that whether the universe has a beginning or not there is no lack of a logical possibility which doesn't require a god.

 

[BradCube]

I don't understand all this. Why bother using scientific premises to argue for/against the existence of a blatantly unscientific idea such as there being a god? You're just degrading science, quite frankly.

Well I don't know that the idea of god is unscientific. Certainly if you mean that we can't scientifically test a supernatural being then I agree with you (since supernatural properties cannot be tested naturally). However, I don't think this means that science can't prove useful in looking at reasons for why one might pose the possibility of Gods existence. I certainly would not agree that science and religion should be separated when trying to show reasons for ones faith.

 

[Enteebee]

I don't understand all this. Why bother using scientific premises to argue for/against the existence of a blatantly unscientific idea such as there being a god? You're just degrading science, quite frankly.

I don't just use scientific premises I also use philosophical ideas... TBH I think the best arguments I've heard/promote are against belief in god based on the person's own theory of knowledge.

 

[Enteebee]

There you have it: trying to show reasons for ones faith. The whole point of faith is that you believe despite any evidence and reasoning to the contrary. It just is. an assumption that can be assumed from the outset.





So to counter the absurdity of using scientific premises for an unscientific idea, you say that you don't use scientific premises...... you use scientific premises AND philosophical premises. Well then...

I'll use science when someone wants to make a scientific argument for the existence of god, I won't just say "no, God can't exist within science" I will try to explain to them the reason why their theory is mistaken. For example if someone wants to claim that the earth is only 6000 years old in order to prove that the bible is accurate about something it had no way to know then I will use science to argue that they are mistaken, if they have a problem with the philosophy behind the science then we'll move more into the realm of philosophy. If they then want to make an argument such as "I believe in God because I have faith" I would then ask why they don't have faith in other things, they'll offer up some form of a rational answer or they'll probably (if they're a thinking person) feel uneasy about their answer.

 

[BradCube]

Because in claiming to be agnostic they are merely claiming to not have full knowledge. It's a philosophical position which leaves me also saying that ultimately I'm a Santa Claus agnostic. If you think this makes me any less of a non-believer in Santa Claus than someone who says "Santa Claus does not exist" you are wrong. There is no difference between my agnosticism in regard to Santa Claus or in regard to God, it is based off the sheer fact that we cannot possibly argue for the existence of something which is possibly (through magic) outside of the realm of rational/empirical inquiry.

Well of course you are just as much as of a non-believer in santa clause as the one who claims that santa clause does not exist! This is because you both lack the belief that santa clause exists - which is what I have been saying all along The difference lies in that you're not even claiming that santa clause does not exist, which is why I can't see how weak atheism is any different to agnosticism with a different name.

How am I any more justified to dismiss the existence of flying reindeer than I am God?

Because you believe that you have provided sufficient testing to show that reindeer don't fly. If you don't believe you have provided sufficient testing to make a conclusion - then either it wasn't a good test to start with or you shouldn't be making a conclusion.

The point of my example was to show that such experiments are ultimately pointless when you're dealing with the potential for magic. Even by throwing 100,000 reindeer off a building it would just prove that 100,000 reindeer had not flown on that day and had fallen to their deaths. It could not prove that they nor any other reindeer do not have magic powers to fly.

If it can then I propose that I'll burn bibles, if god doesn't shoot me with a bolt of lightning then I'm justified in saying God doesn't exist. But you'll say "OH God doesn't work that way", well maybe flying reindeer don't work the way of throwing them off buildings either?

I can't help but wonder why, if you knew reindeer don't work that way, did you throw 100,000 off a building? Sounds like a faulty test to me.

The difference I suppose is that if you know they type of thing you are testing for, then you should know what type of evidence to find (and how to test for it). This is why atheists typically refer to things such as the suffering argument, since it does not seem align with what one would expect to find if a loving God existed.

I'm not really sure if there would be many strong atheists. I'd like to see examples of these people whom claim to have 100% foolproof knowledge (which is all that a lot of agnostics are denying). I'd say that even those that claim '100% God does not exist' are just using common non-philosophical terms... if you introduced them to the ideas of agnosticism they'd probably accept "well no, I don't know for certain" - This makes them an agnostic.

Plenty of strong atheists exist, just as do theists. It's not that they believe their arguments are fool proof - it is because they believe they have sufficient reason to make the jump to their claim. When both the strong atheist and theist are pressed I imagine that both of them will say that neither of them can show you 100% proof of their belief. This doesn't mean they are agnostics though (even if they do retain elements of agnosticism in their views)

How would you go about proving that something does not exist? I'm willing to accept that ultimately absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence... but I'm also unwilling to seriously consider things which have no evidence or strong logic as yet to be in existence. As far as I'm concerned, they do not exist, they may in the future be found to exist, but not yet.

Well as far as God is concerned, the atheist should try to show that the evidence one would expect to find if God did exist, does in fact not exist.

As for you example, no, not being able to prove your innocence doesn't mean you're claiming you're guilty - I'd like to hear the exact relevance.

Your original quote I was reply to was:

to claim to be AS YET unable to prove something does exist is in practical terms exactly the same as claiming something does not exist.

Taking this to the example I gave, If you claim to be unable to give proof of your innocence, this "is in practical terms exactly the same as claiming" that your innocence "does not exist". Hence, you would be guilty.

I AGREE that we're not being 100% logical all the time. I make the jump to say that things which have no evidence for their existence may as well not exist until there is evidence for them. This is 'faith' if you want to call it that, but I am consistent.

I just don't see how this is a good argument. If your trying to argue that being consistently illogical in your beliefs makes it better, I simply don't agree.

In order for there to be equivalence between my position and yours you would need to have a positive belief in everything which has no evidence.

Well, I don't think that I have claimed that at all. What I have said is that we should neither dismiss nor believe in something which we have no evidence for either way. To re-iterate, we should look for what evidence we would expect to find if such an entity did exist. If we cannot find any such evidence after knowing that our testing would have uncovered such evidence, we are rational in claiming that it does not exist. If we do find evidence one would expect, then one is rational in claiming that such an entity does exist.

If you think you have positive evidence for the existence of God then why even claim agnostics have good arguments? The arguments with you lay at the pillar of your positive evidence. I do not believe you have it nor can you demonstrate it at a level beyond that which anyone who believes in any supernatural entity will do.

Because the agnostic position makes perfect sense for the person who lacks belief both ways and makes no claims. We could of course start a debate based on the agnostic vs theistic (or atheistic) positions, but you would have to realize that you have moved into the agnostic camp (which I'm guessing you don't want to do).

Not sure what the second part of thoughts here are trying to suggest. If you're saying that I am terrible at demonstrating why I hold a theistic position, then that's okay, I'm used to coping a bit of flak around here. If you are however suggesting that, my lack of demonstration is good reason to adopt atheism, then I think you may have jumped a bit far!

Perhaps you are suggesting it is impossible for any theist to prove their beliefs to an unbeliever? If that is the case (not trying to draw up straw men here) then you must realize that is a very much an agnostic response, not an atheistic one. As well as this, I am not claiming to be able to prove or show my beliefs to be 100% foolproof - only that I find them more probable than an atheistic alternative.

I'm sure it matters to you, but the fact that you're dismissive of fairies because they're of no significance in your life still doesn't matter. What you should care about is the truth, whether that truth matters to you or not. I might not particularly care whether X is true, but if my reasoning for not believing in it comes into conflict with my reasoning for believing in something else I'd examine it.

For me I don't think it's even that I weigh up whether or not fairies exist. I lack any form of belief in regard to fairies, it simply becomes a non-issue that I don't even think about except in forums like these Because there is not any evidence we should expect to find, it's not really an issue.

To be a little more typically consistent though, if a gun was placed to my head and I had to choose one or the other, I would say they don't exist. This is because their non-existence matches with what evidence I would expect if they did not exist - none! The issue is problematic with fairies though, because that is the same evidence one would expect to find if they also did exist (hence why it becomes a 'who cares then?' issue in my mind). Either way I choose, I don't think that the fairy example is comparable to God. Sure, we can't see either of them, but there is still things we would expect to find if God did exist, which isn't the case for fairies.

If in some sense there is an 'ultimate time' that began all time then we could quite easily say that to ask what came before that is silly because it's like asking what's north of the north pole...

The obvious thing for me to ask is, why if these forms of time are so different to as be independent of one another is it a problem for a further regress of past times to exist? Either way, it's seems we're debating about things we have no grounds to even guess about. Current cosmology suggests that time ultimately began at the big bang, so I don't know how worthwhile it is to be arguing about an infinite regress of independent realities of time.

It means that whether the universe has a beginning or not there is no lack of a logical possibility which doesn't require a god.

I don't think it's as easy to get out of as you would like it to be enteebee! Even if there were scientific evidence for an infinite universe, there are still philosophical problems one must deal with.

 

[BradCube]

There you have it: trying to show reasons for ones faith. The whole point of faith is that you believe despite any evidence and reasoning to the contrary. It just is. an assumption that can be assumed from the outset.

The distinction to make is that knowing something (or believing it) is very different from showing something to be true. So while many Christians know (or think they know) that that their faith is authentic, they may not be able to show or demonstrate as much to an unbeliever. The bible actually calls them to give reasons for their faith. While they can tell someone else the reasons they have, these may not be proofs or impersonal ideas that apply to that other person. Thus, the Christian is ineffective in showing their faith to be true on their own.

Hence why Christian apologetics exists. Apologetics is meant to give a defense of Christianity that does not rely on personal revelation, but instead tries to show the truth of Christianity through other methods - eg science, philosophy etc. This is why you will be seeing science and philosophy used in discussions related to God on this thread.

It seems that most of the difference in our opinion here seems to stem from a difference in definition of what it means to have faith.

 

[Enteebee]

Well of course you are just as much as of a non-believer in santa clause as the one who claims that santa clause does not exist! This is because you both lack the belief that santa clause exists - which is what I have been saying all along The difference lies in that you're not even claiming that santa clause does not exist, which is why I can't see how weak atheism is any different to agnosticism with a different name.

If your point is merely that there's "no difference" then I somewhat agree. If you then go on from this to claim they're "not really atheists" I disagree because if the implication is that since I don't really believe I can know for CERTAIN Santa doesn't exist somewhere in the universe, that means you wouldn't say that I believe Santa does not exist, then you're wrong. I do for all practical purposes believe that there is no Santa, there is this philosophical epistimelogical idea that I also hold though which simply states that I am not certain.

Because you believe that you have provided sufficient testing to show that reindeer don't fly. If you don't believe you have provided sufficient testing to make a conclusion - then either it wasn't a good test to start with or you shouldn't be making a conclusion.

The point is that even if I declared that the test was sufficient it simply logically wasn't.

I can't help but wonder why, if you knew reindeer don't work that way, did you throw 100,000 off a building? Sounds like a faulty test to me.

I don't know, that would be begging the question. I don't have a clue how reindeer work... the point is there's no way for me to ever devise a test.

The difference I suppose is that if you know they type of thing you are testing for, then you should know what type of evidence to find (and how to test for it). This is why atheists typically refer to things such as the suffering argument, since it does not seem align with what one would expect to find if a loving God existed.

There's no way to formulate a scientific test for god or any other supernatural being (such as flying reindeer).

Plenty of strong atheists exist, just as do theists. It's not that they believe their arguments are fool proof - it is because they believe they have sufficient reason to make the jump to their claim. When both the strong atheist and theist are pressed I imagine that both of them will say that neither of them can show you 100% proof of their belief. This doesn't mean they are agnostics though (even if they do retain elements of agnosticism in their views)

You use definitions which just aren't standard, it really muddies the waters. If you want to call someone a strong atheist for saying 'God doesn't exist, but I can't be certain, I can't be sure' you are calling many agnostics strong atheists. Strong atheism is generally 'God doesn't exist - No Questions'.

Well as far as God is concerned, the atheist should try to show that the evidence one would expect to find if God did exist, does in fact not exist.

What happened to that stuff about 'evidence of absence isn't absence of evidence' ? Out the window? I thought you were (rightly so) telling me that I can't prove god doesn't exist by your inability to provide evidence in favour of God.

I'd like a real logical way to prove something does not exist. If you feel that absence of evidence is enough to establish atheism then I believe it has been established.

Taking this to the example I gave, If you claim to be unable to give proof of your innocence, this "is in practical terms exactly the same as claiming" that your innocence "does not exist". Hence, you would be guilty.

Well I'd also throw in... and not 'just knowing' it as I think to claim to 'just know' anything is generally ridiculous.

I just don't see how this is a good argument. If your trying to argue that being consistently illogical in your beliefs makes it better, I simply don't agree.

To be 100% logical I do not think you can prove the existence of many things at all. You need to start to make less than purely logical leaps by creating axioms which are acceptable to you to play the game of 'life'.

Well, I don't think that I have claimed that at all. What I have said is that we should neither dismiss nor believe in something which we have no evidence for either way. To re-iterate, we should look for what evidence we would expect to find if such an entity did exist. If we cannot find any such evidence after knowing that our testing would have uncovered such evidence, we are rational in claiming that it does not exist. If we do find evidence one would expect, then one is rational in claiming that such an entity does exist.

There is no logical/empirical test for the supernatural. Want to give me one so I can show you the gaping flaw?

Because the agnostic position makes perfect sense for the person who lacks belief both ways and makes no claims. We could of course start a debate based on the agnostic vs theistic (or atheistic) positions, but you would have to realize that you have moved into the agnostic camp (which I'm guessing you don't want to do).

It's semantical... I do not believe God exists with equal vigor as I do not believe Fairies exists. I do not know for certain, there's much to this world that we don't know, but until I'm given evidence I am fine with saying God does not exist* - The * would be (but I hold that I ultimately do not know).

For me I don't think it's even that I weigh up whether or not fairies exist. I lack any form of belief in regard to fairies, it simply becomes a non-issue that I don't even think about except in forums like these Because there is not any evidence we should expect to find, it's not really an issue.

There's nothing that separates Gods and Fairies in the realm of rational inquiry. I cannot logically consider the existence of fairies (what are their parameters? Who the hell knows?) nor can I logically consider God. I definitely can't empirically test them... because who's to say they'll obey our laws or whatever?

To be a little more typically consistent though, if a gun was placed to my head and I had to choose one or the other, I would say they don't exist. This is because their non-existence matches with what evidence I would expect if they did not exist - none! The issue is problematic with fairies though, because that is the same evidence one would expect to find if they also did exist (hence why it becomes a 'who cares then?' issue in my mind). Either way I choose, I don't think that the fairy example is comparable to God. Sure, we can't see either of them, but there is still things we would expect to find if God did exist, which isn't the case for fairies.

The fairy example is exactly comparable to God unless you can actually provide for me a test for the existence of God which makes more sense rationally than any test I could come up with for fairies.

I don't think it's as easy to get out of as you would like it to be enteebee! Even if there were scientific evidence for an infinite universe, there are still philosophical problems one must deal with.

It is... To me these days the God question is honestly a sad joke. I continue on because it's somewhat fun because people are all so passionate and also because I would truly like to be proven wrong, but there is no hope of that. Theism is devoid of argument, what you have left are some lofty hippies and people that are a few years behind the bell curve. In the end even if I cannot provide a plausible answer for something it doesn't point towards a god... If anything it tends to just (imo) point towards perhaps limits on the capability of the human mind.

 

[KFunk]

I don't understand all this. Why bother using scientific premises to argue for/against the existence of a blatantly unscientific idea such as there being a god? You're just degrading science, quite frankly.

You beg the question if you assume from the outset that the idea does not permit of scientific treatment (a fallacy which itself is poor intellectual/scientific practice). Some claims made about god generate empirically testable hypotheses. Even when the entitiy in question generates no empirical predictions whatsoever we can still use the theoretical/philosophical parts of the scientific method to justify non-belief.

What tools should we be using if not those of the scientific method??

 

[Enteebee]

I don't think the scientific method can be used to prove that for instance reindeer can't fly magically. What it can do however is invalidate/validate many of the positive claims for the existence of the being/whatever. If BradCube could give me a positive claim such as "Prayer works" I feel I could then invalidate that using the scientific method, or at the very least show that it doesn't appear to work when we do our study. I do not think with the scientific method I can come close to invalidating 'fairies exist' - Though I could invalidate the hypothesis that it was a fairy that put the money under your pillow.