DHA's Wager

I never said it was the only one, but for clarity and brevity and considering the forum, I thought it best to be more specific than less specific. As agnosticism is very much at the center of this conversation, my beliefs are actually relevant. In some aspects of the definition you presented they are the only issue of relevance.As I said, I don’t believe it is impossible to know if the Christian God of the Bible exists. This is based on God being defined as one who effects the natural world. Logically, doing so leaves trace evidence. It is precisely the lack of such evidence which logically supports my argument. I do disbelieve and I do deny, and those at this point are the only two criteria. Actually, as you can read, I really only need to meet one of them. I don’t *believe* that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.I am not skeptical about the existence of God and I profess true atheism.I am not doubtful or noncommittal about God’s existence.Obviously, I do not meet the definition you presented of one who is agnostic.Therefore, in my case, the agnostic position is not more logically valid.

okay so you are an atheist. your need to specifically deny one form of religion is still amusing to me, but it is an issue for you to deal with on your terms. Totally false. For one, logical validity does not depend on who you are or what you believe, it depends on the argument being logically consistent.As noted elsewhere on several occasions absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is no way to show that the behavior of the {natural world\universe} is not what god has caused to be, if for no other reason than there is no other frame of reference for comparison.Thus the whole universe could be your "trace evidence" without any need to look for subtle anomalies.as I said to Rrhain above: enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

The definition of atheist is pretty clear to me.

---

The problem is that the definition you provided doesn't apply to the vast majority of those who profess atheism.Atheists do not "disbelieve" in the existence of god (though there are some who actively deny such existence). Instead, most atheists have no belief in the existence of god.Do you have any belief about the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (Blessed Be Her Horn)? Do you go about your day actively reminding yourself that you don't believe in the IPU (BBHH)? Did you have any thoughts about her at all until I brought it up just now?You don't disbelieve...you have no belief because it has no impact upon you. You never bothered to consider it until somebody else brought it up. And when they stop bringing it up, you'll probably forget all about it and return to your previous life oblivious to anybody's feelings about the IPU (BBHH).There are an infinite number of things that you have no belief in. Why is god such a special one? There's an old joke: The difference between a theist and an atheist is that for the theist, he thinks that of the 1,000 gods out there, 999 of them don't exist. The atheist doesn't make an exception for that last one.Are you saying that theists are also atheists?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

In any event this certainly should not be unexpected, no matter what explanation of the anomalous behavior of galaxies turns out to be true (ie anomalous behavior should be observed "here" as well as "there" whether it is due to dark gods or to misunderstanding the gravity of the matter).

---

Why? Why should everything be exactly the same here as it is at the heliopause? It isn't the same here as it is in the center of the sun. There appears to be a distinction between baryonic and dark matter. Why should we expect to find large, noticeable effects in an area that is seemingly composed primarily of baryonic matter?The reason why we need to collide particles at high velocity is because there doesn't seem to be any dark matter of any significance around here. By colliding them at high velocity, we essentially "reset" everything to something primordial and let things fall out, some of which ought to be the supersymmetry particles we expect to find like neutralinos.

quote:

---

Last time I checked the scientific process did not run: (1) make observation {A} that does not fit with previous theories, (2) devise explanation {B} that explains how {A} could happen, and then (3) use {A} as evidence that {B} is correct.

​

This is what I am objecting to.

---

Since that isn't what happened with regard to dark matter and energy, one wonders why you are so up in arms about it. You seem to be saying that the world's cosmologists and particle physics, after years of working dilligently in the field, all suddenly decided to abandon all standards of practice with regard to this one subject and managed to convince every single journal editor in the subject to go along with it.There's a reason why we're building the collider in order to detect particles like neutralinos. There's a reason why we're building probes to search for them (and seem to have some very promising results). It's called "testing."

quote:

---

quote:

---

Physics is nothing more than applied mathematics.

---

​

Wrong. Physics is how the universe works.

---

Right...and the universe works mathematically. Yes, I am a mathematician, but do you know who I got that from? A physicist. Biology is applied Chemistry. Chemistry is applied Physics. Physics is applied Mathematics.There are other chemical reactions beyond what happens in biology, but the action of biology is chemical in nature. That's why there's such a thing as "biochemistry." There are other physical reactions beyond what happens in chemistry, but the action of chemistry is physical in nature. That's why there's such a thing as "physical chemistry." There are other mathematical processes beyond what happens in physics, but the action of physics is mathematical in nature. That's why there's such a thing as "mathematical physics." That's why Newton developed calculus in order to be able to describe his physics. Some of the most fascinating things in physics boil down to differential equations that we have been unable to solve directly but can only do so mechanically.

quote:

---

Math is part of the model to explain it.

---

No, math is the actual result. Our physical theories are a model of the actual result.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Huh? You seem to be saying that if you see something that is consistent and not what you expected, you're not allowed to actually do any sort of analysis on it

---

​

No. What I am saying is not to become bemused by the math involved in one explanation to the point of not looking at other possibilities.

---

Since that isn't what happened, one wonders why you are so up in arms over it.They're building the collider to test it. They've got the data from the probes to pore through. What more do you want? Since the physics seems to be pointing in this direction, why are you so upset that people are having confidence in the fact that the theory which seems so correct in other areas will also be correct in this other area? Isn't that the way science works? Make predictions and test?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Be specific. What experiments, articles, studies, or data are you using to justify your opinion?

---

​

Why? I said it was an opinion.

---

An opinion without justification is merely wishful thinking and does not deserve to be called an "opinion."

quote:

---

And I could say "after you"

---

And I gave you an answer. Or have you forgotten about the collider and space probes already?

quote:

---

but there are several other explanation for the anomalous behavior that do not require the invocation of dark stuffs, from ekpyrosis

---

Brane theory? That's even more nebulous than superstrings. It's interesting, and the search for gravity waves is happening (I've got the Einstein@Home screen saver going on my tablet to help), but that is a much less justified hypothesis than dark matter.I should point out, however, that by invoking brane theory, you are taking superstring theory even further. Branes, after all, are a mathematical outcropping of superstring theory.My god, if you're going to be upset over dark matter and dark energy being used to describe the rotation of the galaxies coming out of QM, why aren't you jumping up and down, screaming your head off over branes being used to describe large cosmological structure (flatness, homogeneity, lumpiness, and monopoles).

quote:

---

to einsteins' universal constant, and others.

---

Um, the cosmological constant is dark energy. They've found that it is constant, too: Dark energy confirmed as constant presence

quote:

---

I also look at the problem of the gravitons and other missing elements of current theory.

---

Huh? Because we don't have a good handle on quantum gravity, this means there can't know anything about gravity? What a creationist excuse. Because we don't know everything, that means we know nothing?

quote:

---

Then we have the problem that dark matter was not good enough to explain all the anomalous behaviors, so now we have to have dark energy. What's next? Dark Gravity? It is a pattern that historically has been resolved by a new theory, not forcing things to fit the old theories.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?What do you think theories of dark matter and dark energy are? They're new theory.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Let's take just the solar system, centered on the sun and out to the heliopause. How much of this volume is occupied by matter?

---

​

Totally irrelevant strawman.

---

Incorrect. It goes directly to the heart of the matter. Did you or did you not say: Therefore, does it or does it not make sense to make sure you understand the distribution of particles within space? Most of the mass of the solar system is concentrated at the sun. We should not expect all details about the solar system to be the same as what we find at the sun.In a similar way, since we live in an area that is overwhelmingly concentrated with baryonic matter, why would we expect to find easily detectable evidence of non-baryonic matter nearby? And since gravity is such a weak force and requires such sensitive instruments to detect anomalies in it and since the effects seem to be happening on galactic scales, why should we be surprised to find that we have to leave the solar system before we can find real evidence of what is going on?

quote:

---

Would you say that we have a good understanding of over 90% of the composition of the solar system?

---

Define "composition of the solar system"?

quote:

---

The question is about how much we understand the universe, not how much volume it takes up.

---

But we can only work with what we have. We sit on a giant lump of baryonic matter. Why is it so surprising that most of what we understand is about baryonic matter and that we need to develop new theories such as dark energy and dark matter to help us understand what we see outside the lumps of baryonic matter? That we need to do some pretty big things like construct gigantic colliders and send probes into space away from the baryons in order to see what the universe is like when you take them away?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

It really is quite simple.

​

Absent proof that {A} exists, and

---

Hold it just a parboiled second.What is this {A} you keep talking about? I'd like to have a definition, please.Before we can have proof of anything about {A}, either for or against, we need to have a solid definition of what this {A} is. Unfortunately, nobody seems to be able to nail down exactly what "god" is. And since we cannot seem to agree on what it is, how can we possibly begin to claim it exists?And thus, we end up with the logical default: Burden of proof is always on the claimant. Since it is the theists who are claiming the existence of god, it is up to them to come up with the evidence. Otherwise, we must default to the position of non-existence.

quote:

---

What is the most logical position:
(1) Yes {A} exists
(2) No {A} does not exist
(3) We don't know if {A} exists or not

---

None of the above. Instead, try, "What is {A}?"And if you can't tell me, why should I consider the possibility that it exists?

quote:

---

Regardless of what {A} is (whether it is dark stuffs, gravitons or gods), and whether you (or I) believe that {A} exists (or doesn't) has no bearing on the issue.

---

Indeed, but in the case of dark energy and dark matter, we have some sort of definition. We can at least see an effect. We have a means of testing our hypotheses to see if they stand up.As I mentioned before, we're still waiting on the standard model of particle physics since we have yet to come up with any of the superparticles (that's what the new collider is for), but we have some idea of what it is we are going to be looking for.

quote:

---

All that is at issue is determining what is the more logical position: (1), (2) or (3).

---

None of the above.Until you can tell me what {A} is, why should I consider the possibility of its existence?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

RAZD, yup! --TheLit

which is why the study of the universe as it is, rather than any idea of what it should be, should be the paramount task of science.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Why you would discard what I wrote to apply your own motivation is beyond me. It certainly isn’t unusual to limit the discussion on God or gods to a Christian viewpoint on this forum. You mistook my statement as a logic evaluation statement, when it was instead a summary of the post.Here’s a different summary.Most arguments about atheism being illogical are based on the existence of God being unverifiable. The argument usually takes the form of: Absence evidence of God’s existence is not evidence of non-existence. It is then argued that without such evidence one cannot reach a logical conclusion.I propose we need not test the existence of God, but only test the Bible’s claims of his effects. This is of course a test of the God of the Bible and not a test of some unknowable deity. Were it not for the Bible’s extraordinary claims this would not be possible. Yet, the Bible claims he creates not so subtle ones. Where are those?

quote:

---

It really is quite simple.

​

Absent proof that {A} exists, and
Absent proof that {A} does not exist

​

What is the most logical position:
(1) Yes {A} exists
(2) No {A} does not exist
(3) We don't know if {A} exists or not

---

This is disingenuous, becuase it elides contributory factors. Such as for example, whther or not I would have to undertake penance or confession or whatever as a result of my decision. In this regard, it might conceivably be coerced.Further, this "proof" can be applied qually to any imaginable thing. As a means of determing the correct action, its essentially useless. In the absence of evidence of invisible pink unicorns, and without proof that there are NO invisible pink unicorns...I think the EXISTANCE of something has to be shown, and its non-existence can be presumed by default. I know "absence of evidence" etc, but I think that unless there is some other reason to think that A exists, the mere contemplation of the possibility of A is not enough.In the case of god, there is no supporting evidence. I thereby adopt the default "does not exist" position until some reason, however tenuous, can be provided to the contrary.

therefore all those missing links are evidence of a lack of links between species?and the coelecanth didn't exist between the periods when we have evidence for it?sorry.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

and all that proves is that the statement in the bible that is tested is false. again your emphasis is on only one small corner of the issue of the existence of any god.in logic this is known as a strawman argument: replacing the real argument with a simpler easily falsified version. the fact remains that disproving your strawman does not disprove the real argument.see Forbidden for more.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Not so. The validity of the logical construct does not depend on what {A} is, it rests on the logical structure alone. Looks like you missed the point entirely. The point is not about the existence of {A} but about the valid logical conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence or lack of evidence. The problem for you is that the definition I used is the standard definition from the dictionary, not one I made up on my own. I suggest you take the issue up with the dictionary companies. Until that happens however, I will continue to use a dictionary definition as the best information available on what people mean by the words they use.How many people know what an atheist is without having run into the concept of god? Sorry your pink unicorn, though darling with the long curly haired mane, just doesn't make it as a {metaphor\example}, and ends up being a strawman(horse\unicorn).the rest of the whole dark matter\energy issue is {said tom darkly} off topic, even though this is Coffee House (where the rules are lighter). that said ... Key word model. TMINTT. It is fine to be a mathematician, but that doesn't make the world orbit the sun. You may be able to calculate the orbit with a fair degree of precision, but you will never reach absolute accuracy. Nor can you change the math and have a different reality. {Mathematics\Models} can only cover the things that are included in the {mathmatics\models}, and fail to {predict\account for} anything not included. The result is a necessarily limited view. Doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Know why? Clue: my complaint here is that physics relies too much on the math to the extent that they give the mathematical model more validity than the observations ... You give them a lot of credit that they just don't have. They are first and formost fudge factors to make the universe behave according to the mathematical model.Your supercollider is not built, to say nothing about reaching results based on experiments based on conjectures about what may or may not happen.The space probes are just more evidence of exactly the same behavior that the dark stuffs are invoked to explain, so again you are using the observation as the evidence for the explanation of the observation.There was no sudden shift in behavior of the space probes upon reaching some mysterious distance (beyond this line there be demons?), they just reached a point where the mathematical model of their position did not match the reality of their position to such a degree that it could be measured. This means either (A) something {mysterious} is acting on the probes or (B) the mathematical model is wrong. Until you have solid proof of (A) you cannot eliminate (B).I certainly support the supercollider and expect to {see\welcome} new information as a result of experiments conducted in it. But also I do not presuppose any result as given. That's one interpretation. There are others. Problem is that QM predicts either zero constant or very large constant, while the reality is that the value obtained to date is rather small. LOL. You just don't get it.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

As I said this approach was to simplify and focus the discussion. Now that we’ve dispensed with God, you can see it isn’t a strawman as I apply it to other gods. Are there any specific ones you believe my approach won’t work with?

except you haven't. even if you prove that the flood never happened, does that mean that the whole christian god is wrong or just that part of the book written by fallible humans? why are there so many christians then, that do not believe that the flood in any more than an allegorical story, but who still have strong faith in their religion? sorry it is still a strawman by definition. it is still a lesser version, and ignores most of the spectrum of supernatural possibilities.because an argument pleases you doesn't mean that it is complete or valid.I notice that you haven't answered which is the more valid conclusion ...
(1) yes, {A} exists
(2) no, {A} does not exist
(3) we don't have enough information ...enjoy.

RAZD responds to contracycle:

quote:

---

therefore all those missing links are evidence of a lack of links between species?

---

Huh? What do you mean "missing"? The fossil record is replete with transitionals.

quote:

---

and the coelecanth didn't exist between the periods when we have evidence for it?

---

Was there any logical reason to think that it did given that all evidence indicated that it didn't? That none of the actions we carried out affected it in any way?Nobody is saying that belief in absence actually causes absence. The question is whether or not having absolutely no indication of presence despite honest and fairly thorough attempt to find such evidence is good enough for someone to conclude that it isn't there (with all the caveats about tentativity that comes with observational methods of investigation.)

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!