Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist?
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3374 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 196 of 375 (500539)
02-27-2009 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by RAZD
02-26-2009 9:43 PM


Re: Why the reluctance to accept the objective reality of world views?
Of course, however, what do we do about opposing opinions that are not contradicted by reality? Is there an absolute answer to who "has it right" between democrat and republican ideologies? Most of the interactions you have with people are not on the basis of scientific knowledge and known objective facts. What you share is a common society and social values that are ... part of your world view by definition.
Yes, sure, there are matters in which an accurate answer does not exist or has not yet been worked out.
I think you have grabbed the wrong end of the stick as far as the current discussion is concerned. There are lots of matters for which an accurate answer exists. The questions of the existence and/or nature of gods surely fall into this category. How is it legitimate to judge those on the basis of pre-existing predilections (world-view) rather than using evidence or reserving judgement until evidence is obtained?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2009 9:43 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 197 of 375 (500547)
02-27-2009 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by bluegenes
02-27-2009 6:02 AM


Re: Why the reluctance to accept the objective reality of world views?
It's the way in which you're using that fact in argument which is invalid.
Yes, showing that people come to different conclusions on things with no clear conclusion, with no clear pro or con evidence, is really an outrageous use of the concept.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by bluegenes, posted 02-27-2009 6:02 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by bluegenes, posted 02-27-2009 8:05 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 200 by Straggler, posted 02-28-2009 5:41 AM RAZD has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 198 of 375 (500549)
02-27-2009 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by RAZD
02-27-2009 7:57 AM


Re: Why the reluctance to accept the objective reality of world views?
RAZD writes:
Yes, showing that people come to different conclusions on things with no clear conclusion, with no clear pro or con evidence, is really an outrageous use of the concept.
Enjoy.
So, you're supportive of the idea that a miracle based view of origins should have a prominent place in any education system, then?
It is a popular world view, and miracles, like deities, cannot be disproved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by RAZD, posted 02-27-2009 7:57 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 199 of 375 (500552)
02-27-2009 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by RAZD
02-26-2009 9:43 PM


Re: Why the reluctance to accept the objective reality of world views?
I am not convinced by all this talk of world-view. Things are as they are, and that does not change according to people's philosophical notions. Opinions that do not match reality are false, after all.
Of course, however, what do we do about opposing opinions that are not contradicted by reality?
Well if they are worthy of consideration at all then what we should do is evaluate them as objectively as possible in light of the limited evidence that is available whilst acknowledging a degree of uncertainty relative to this lack of evidence.
Otherwise we end up back in the position of logically having to claim agnosticism with regard to all things that are not directly contradicted by evidence. And I know how much you enjoy the Immaterial Pink Unicorn and his friends...........
When considering the likelihood of any particular god actually existing we cannot just ignore the human capacity for invention.
The IPU is ridiculous because we know that people can create false concepts without pausing for thought. Given a motive to create such a concept (e.g. as an example of an unevidenced logical comparison in a debate) we absolutely know that human beings are able to think up a concept wilfully contradicing, indeed in defiance of, reality.
It is true that not all 'god' concepts are created from such explicit, evident and conscious motivation to wilfully defy reality. The motives for most are more unconscious and subtle. Time and extended mythology over time also play a part in making some gods seem less "absurd" than others.
However to implicitly accept the innate human ability and capacity for invention and imagination when considering the IPU and other such concepts whilst not doing so when considering various other gods, including your own, is inconsistent and hypocritical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2009 9:43 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 200 of 375 (500618)
02-28-2009 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by RAZD
02-27-2009 7:57 AM


Re: Why the reluctance to accept the objective reality of world views?
RAZD writes:
Why the reluctance to accept the objective reality of world views?
Bluegenes writes:
It's the way in which you're using that fact in argument which is invalid.
RAZD writes:
Yes, showing that people come to different conclusions on things with no clear conclusion, with no clear pro or con evidence, is really an outrageous use of the concept.
Nobody is denying that world views exist.
Likewise nobody can doubt that people will come to different conclusions even where the evidence is utterly conclusive - So simply pointing out that people come to different conclusions, whilst true, is irrelevant.
The problem with your "world views" argument is that it fails to acknowledge that not all "world views" are equally objective, logical or evidentially supported.
If you absolutely insist on lumping together tentative conclusions derived fom objective evidence AND claims that are wholly unevidenced in any objective sense under the single banner of "world views" then let us at least acknowledge this distinction between the two.
Of course, however, what do we do about opposing opinions that are not contradicted by reality?
Your implicit assertion that all claims which do not directly contradict known evidence are equally lacking in objectivity and reliability is just not true.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by RAZD, posted 02-27-2009 7:57 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2009 8:08 PM Straggler has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 201 of 375 (500699)
03-01-2009 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Straggler
02-28-2009 5:41 AM


The glass is both full and empty.
Nobody is denying that world views exist.
The problem with your "world views" argument is that it fails to acknowledge that not all "world views" are equally objective, logical or evidentially supported.
No, what it realizes is that when you run out of evidence, when you run off into the world of extrapolations, however logically or supported by evidence you think they are, you have no way to ascertain that one view is any better than another, other than relying on your own particular world view and how congruent it is with other world views. Claiming that your world view is more logical than others at this point is just hubris, imho.
Should we include the nut that thinks he is Napoleon? No, we have evidence that he isn't the Bonafide Napoleon, and in similar vein we can readily exclude world views that contain beliefs contradicted by evidence of reality.
The problem with your "world views" argument is that it fails to acknowledge that not all "world views" are equally objective, logical or evidentially supported.
What you fail to consider is you can have two world views that are "equally objective, logical or evidentially supported" but which reach contradictory conclusions.
Any claim that yours is more correct than the other on the basis of it being logically consistent with your beliefs, what you consider logical extrapolation, and what you consider valid evidence, etc. etc. etc. is just pride in your personal opinions, the ones that form your extrapolations.
Your implicit assertion that all claims which do not directly contradict known evidence are equally lacking in objectivity and reliability is just not true.
You want to run that one by again? The evidence of trying to twist someone's argument into something it is not, is when it begins to be incoherent.
My "implicit assertion" is nothing more than my stated assertion: when you run out of evidence pro or con, and when you run off into what you consider logical extrapolations, you are basing your conclusions on your opinions concerning what is a logical extrapolation, and thus two different people can reach contradictory conclusions from the same evidence. The plain fact that contradictory conclusions can be reached is, to my humble way of looking at such things, evidence that such extrapolations do not provide a means of testing them for validity.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Straggler, posted 02-28-2009 5:41 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Straggler, posted 03-02-2009 3:31 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 204 by bluegenes, posted 03-02-2009 7:28 AM RAZD has replied

  
Kemikill
Junior Member (Idle past 5506 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 02-28-2009


Message 202 of 375 (500709)
03-02-2009 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
02-09-2009 7:59 PM


I was looking for something light for my first post and thought this would be a good one.
Theist - Belief in a knowable god/s.
Deist- Belief in an unknowable god/s.
Agnostic- Allow for the possibility of god/s.
Atheist- Believe there is no god due to lack of evidence.
I see no fine line between deist and atheist and can't believe this thread is 14 pages long but I'm new so...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-09-2009 7:59 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 203 of 375 (500714)
03-02-2009 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by RAZD
03-01-2009 8:08 PM


Re: The glass is both full and empty.
No, what it realizes is that when you run out of evidence, when you run off into the world of extrapolations, however logically or supported by evidence you think they are, you have no way to ascertain that one view is any better than another, other than relying on your own particular world view and how congruent it is with other world views.
Not all untested conclusions are equally objective or logical. By claiming otherwise you are both denying the validity of the scientific method and opening yourself up to yet more examples of absurdity. Examples which you will no doubt find insulting but against which you will have no logical defense.
Science would be impossible if we were unable to make reasoned tentative conclusions by the logical extrapolation of evidence. Hypotheses such as the existence of dark matter and the Higgs boson are not directly evidenced but as tentative conclusions they are far superior in terms of logic and evidential foundation than conclusions derived from consulting with the spirits, seeking guidance from your favourite god or any other example of purely subjective interpretation.
Incomplete Empirical Evidence + Logic = Untested Conclusion
  • What evidence plus logic leads you to your belief in a deity?
  • Can this same evidence and logic combination equally result in conclusions that you find absurd?
  • If so then on what basis do you conclude that this evidence and logic is valid?
    What you fail to consider is you can have two world views that are "equally objective, logical or evidentially supported" but which reach contradictory conclusions.
    Yes RAZ. That is how competing scienetific hypotheses are arrived at. Nobody, especially not me, is denying that.
    But not all conclusions are deserving of the name "scientific hypothesis". Many are better described as "subjective unevidenced nonsense".
    when you run out of evidence pro or con, and when you run off into what you consider logical extrapolations, you are basing your conclusions on your opinions concerning what is a logical extrapolation, and thus two different people can reach contradictory conclusions from the same evidence. The plain fact that contradictory conclusions can be reached is, to my humble way of looking at such things, evidence that such extrapolations do not provide a means of testing them for validity.
    Depending on the empirical evidence available there may be one or more equally valid logical conclusions. I could not agree more. But so what?
    This hardly justifies your underlying argument that belief in the existence of a deity which has no objective empirical evidential basis whatsoever is a valid logical conclusion.
    Incomplete Empirical Evidence + Logic = Untested Conclusion
  • What evidence plus logic leads you to your belief in a deity?
  • Can this same evidence and logic combination equally result in conclusions that you find absurd?
  • If so then on what basis do you conclude that this evidence and logic is valid?
    In contrast do you not agree that there is a wealth of evidence to suggest that humans invent gods?
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 201 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2009 8:08 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

      
    bluegenes
    Member (Idle past 2477 days)
    Posts: 3119
    From: U.K.
    Joined: 01-24-2007


    Message 204 of 375 (500729)
    03-02-2009 7:28 AM
    Reply to: Message 201 by RAZD
    03-01-2009 8:08 PM


    Anything goes!
    RAZD writes:
    My "implicit assertion" is nothing more than my stated assertion: when you run out of evidence pro or con, and when you run off into what you consider logical extrapolations, you are basing your conclusions on your opinions concerning what is a logical extrapolation, and thus two different people can reach contradictory conclusions from the same evidence. The plain fact that contradictory conclusions can be reached is, to my humble way of looking at such things, evidence that such extrapolations do not provide a means of testing them for validity.
    So, this world view is as valid as any by your way of thinking.
    Omphalos hypothesis - Wikipedia
    As soon as you opt for a belief in a supernatural proposition for which there's no evidence, but which cannot be disproved, anything goes. The arguments against omphalism are the same as those made by some of us as a reason for not believing in gods. There's no positive evidence for such propositions, and strong evidence of the human tendency to make such things up.
    None of this is a serious attempt to stop you believing in your unknowable entities whose state, in relation to the concept of existence, presumably cannot be known, but rather an attempt to illustrate how most atheists probably differ from deists in their approach to the idea of gods (for the sake of the topic).

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 201 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2009 8:08 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 205 by Straggler, posted 03-02-2009 10:15 AM bluegenes has not replied
     Message 208 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2009 7:20 PM bluegenes has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 205 of 375 (500738)
    03-02-2009 10:15 AM
    Reply to: Message 204 by bluegenes
    03-02-2009 7:28 AM


    THE Difference
    None of this is a serious attempt to stop you believing in your unknowable entities whose state, in relation to the concept of existence, presumably cannot be known, but rather an attempt to illustrate how most atheists probably differ from deists in their approach to the idea of gods (for the sake of the topic).
    Ah yes the topic......
    When it comes to accepting scientific evidence on a day to day functional basis there seems to be little practical difference between the atheist and the deist.
    But there does seem to be a significant division between the atheist and the deist in terms of the consistency of rational approach.
    DOES GOD X EXIST?
    There is no evidence contradicting the idea that god X does exist. However there is no objective evidence based reason to think that such an entity even might exist.
    The atheist position is not to explicitly deny the existence of any such entity. Instead the atheist raises a metaphorical eyebrow at the very validity of the question, a question which itself only has any meaning if we accept the subjectively derived conclusion that such an entity is even possible or worthy of consideration, before pointing out that in the absence of any evidence to suggest such a thing might exist there really rationally and logically is no reason at all to think that it does exist. Thus non-belief is the only rational course of action.
    Conversely the deist must by definition subjectively conclude that at least one, but not all, such entities do exist. This inherently requires a form of special pleading and is an indisputably irrational conclusion.
    I cannot for the life of me work out why RAZD is disputing this clear difference between the two positions.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 204 by bluegenes, posted 03-02-2009 7:28 AM bluegenes has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 206 by Percy, posted 03-02-2009 10:25 AM Straggler has replied

      
    Percy
    Member
    Posts: 22392
    From: New Hampshire
    Joined: 12-23-2000
    Member Rating: 5.3


    Message 206 of 375 (500740)
    03-02-2009 10:25 AM
    Reply to: Message 205 by Straggler
    03-02-2009 10:15 AM


    Re: THE Difference
    Straggler writes:
    I cannot for the life of me work out why RAZD is disputing this clear difference between the two positions.
    Since this is the same mistake that most theists make but displayed by one of our own who is not antagonistic to science, this seems an ideal opportunity to explore the mind of the theist. I confess that like you I can't get beyond, "How could he not see this," but anyway, while RAZD probably cannot step back from his own mind and provide us a roadmap, perhaps if we poke and probe with the right questions something meaningful might emerge.
    RAZD, sorry to describe you like an experiment, but hey, it's all in the name of science!
    --Percy

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 205 by Straggler, posted 03-02-2009 10:15 AM Straggler has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 207 by Straggler, posted 03-02-2009 3:10 PM Percy has not replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 207 of 375 (500798)
    03-02-2009 3:10 PM
    Reply to: Message 206 by Percy
    03-02-2009 10:25 AM


    Re: THE Difference
    Since this is the same mistake that most theists make but displayed by one of our own who is not antagonistic to science, this seems an ideal opportunity to explore the mind of the theist.
    When it comes to the presentation and analysis of detailed scientific evidence there is nobody better here at EvC than RAZD. He has been one of my favourite posters ever since I joined.
    I confess that like you I can't get beyond, "How could he not see this,"
    Well I am glad that I am not alone in my bewilderment.
    while RAZD probably cannot step back from his own mind and provide us a roadmap
    The normal theistic arguments go something like this:
    1) Your position requires just as much faith and reliance on subjective interpretation as does mine.
    2) My evidence is just as valid as yours.
    3) Whatever evidence does or does not exist you cannot prove that my god does not exist so I win anyway.
    RAZD's "world view" assertion is a relatively sophisticated version of 1) above. I guess it remains to be seen if any of the other strategies from the theists standard playbook will be employed.
    perhaps if we poke and probe with the right questions something meaningful might emerge.
    Well I intend to try.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 206 by Percy, posted 03-02-2009 10:25 AM Percy has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 209 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2009 8:06 PM Straggler has replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1405 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 208 of 375 (500874)
    03-02-2009 7:20 PM
    Reply to: Message 204 by bluegenes
    03-02-2009 7:28 AM


    Re: Anything goes when you ignore the actual argument.
    As soon as you opt for a belief in a supernatural proposition for which there's no evidence, but which cannot be disproved, anything goes.
    Which, curiously, is not my position. Let me know when you want to address the position and not your straw man version.
    None of this is a serious attempt to stop you believing in your unknowable entities whose state, in relation to the concept of existence, presumably cannot be known, but rather an attempt to illustrate how most atheists probably differ from deists in their approach to the idea of gods (for the sake of the topic).
    And yet they will disagree among themselves about conclusions reached based on their world views when they run out of evidence pro or con, and when they run off into what they consider logical extrapolations, and nobody can say that one is right.
    My position is simple: science and logic can only get you so far, in finding the "ultimate answer to the questions of life, the universe and (oh) everything" - and that when you exceed that boundary you cannot claim to be correct or right ... or logical. No matter how hard you try you will never derive or deduct a real answer, rather that what you will get is a conclusion consistent with your world view. You will, of course, also conclude that your answer is logical and rational.
    Enjoy.

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    Rebel American Zen Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.


    • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 204 by bluegenes, posted 03-02-2009 7:28 AM bluegenes has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 211 by bluegenes, posted 03-02-2009 8:58 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1405 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 209 of 375 (500878)
    03-02-2009 8:06 PM
    Reply to: Message 207 by Straggler
    03-02-2009 3:10 PM


    The difference is where you go when you run out of evidence and logic
    Well I am glad that I am not alone in my bewilderment.
    I find it curious that the definition of faith is "belief without evidence," and yet it seems the first, second, and last question atheists ask about, is where the evidence is. It seems to me that they don't understand that the question is essentially pointless.
    The normal theistic arguments go something like this:
    1) Your position requires just as much faith and reliance on subjective interpretation as does mine.
    2) My evidence is just as valid as yours.
    3) Whatever evidence does or does not exist you cannot prove that my god does not exist so I win anyway.
    RAZD's "world view" assertion is a relatively sophisticated version of 1) above.
    Let's try this:
    (1) Your position regarding the realms of science and logic requires just as much evidence and logic as mine, they are both equally valid within the realms covered by science and logic, but the realms of science and logic are limited.
    (2) When you run out of evidence, when you reach the limits of primary extrapolations, then any further conclusions are based on a logical house of cards and on what you believe to be true -- your world view.
    (3) Nobody has an absolute answer.
    There are some things that cannot be explained by logic and science. Faith is one.
    Enjoy.

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    Rebel American Zen Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.


    • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 207 by Straggler, posted 03-02-2009 3:10 PM Straggler has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 210 by Straggler, posted 03-02-2009 8:51 PM RAZD has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 210 of 375 (500884)
    03-02-2009 8:51 PM
    Reply to: Message 209 by RAZD
    03-02-2009 8:06 PM


    Re: The difference is where you go when you run out of evidence and logic
    (1) Your position regarding the realms of science and logic requires just as much evidence and logic as mine, they are both equally valid within the realms covered by science and logic, but the realms of science and logic are limited.
    Given that you seem to have ceased participation in your Immaterial Pink Unicorn thread can I take it that you now accept that the possibility of extraterrestrial life and dark matter both lie within the realm of science and logic? Despite being strictly "unevidenced".
    If so, your position regarding directly unevidenced claims has undergone a fairly major shift.
    (2) When you run out of evidence, when you reach the limits of primary extrapolations, then any further conclusions are based on a logical house of cards and on what you believe to be true -- your world view.
    What do you make of the evidence in favour of humanity inventing gods?
    Do you think this has any relevance with regard to attempting to objectively evaluate the likelihood of gods actually existing?
    Or not?
    (3) Nobody has an absolute answer.
    I have not seen anyone here claim any absolute answers.
    My argument is, and always has been, that no claim is made in a vacuum of objective evidence and that some measure of relative likelihood is always therefore possible.
  • Based on the available evidence we can hypothesise the relative likelihood of alien life existing or not.
  • Based on the evidence available we can hypothesise the relative likelihood of gods being human inventions or not.
    We may never know the answer to these questions but there is indisputably research that we can do to increase the confidence that we have in our untested (ultimately untestable?) conclusions.
    To claim these things as unknowable in any objective sense may be strictly and trivially true. But that does not stop us from reaching highly evidentially supported and logically consistent answers. Answers that, despite ultimately remaining untested, still have the weight of the scientific method behind them and a degree of reliability that subjective world view will never match.
    You have said nothing that refutes this in two threads now.
    My position is simple: science and logic can only get you so far, in finding the "ultimate answer to the questions of life, the universe and (oh) everything" - and that when you exceed that boundary you cannot claim to be correct or right ... or logical. No matter how hard you try you will never derive or deduct a real answer, rather that what you will get is a conclusion consistent with your world view. You will, of course, also conclude that your answer is logical and rational.
    That is all very well and good.
    But back to the explicit topic at hand.........Whilst you seem to agree that there is no evidential or logical reason for believing in any particular god you also seem to consider the atheistic conclusion that no particular god is evidentially or logically worthy of belief as irrational.
    That is the bone of contention.
    Do you accept that your path, the path of choosing one such entity in which to place your faith whilst rejecting the infinite array of other possibilities, is irrational? Is this in fact your position? If not what exactly is your deistic position?
    With regard to the atheist position - Which gods should the atheist even place under consideration? Should I plough through the history of gods and consider the potential existence of each in turn? Should I consider your god? A god I would be blissfully unaware of but for the fact of conversing with you. Do I evaluate the likelihood of Percy's god? Do I invent my own god(s)? Which gods should I even consider believing in? All of them?
    Or can I reasonably conclude that in the absence of any objective evidence to even suggest that these, or the infinite array of other such unevidenced possibilities, might exist that I will treat them all as equally improbable and get on with my life unhindered by belief in such things?
    Is that not the rational conclusion?

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 209 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2009 8:06 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 212 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2009 9:34 PM Straggler has replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024