Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


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?
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 31 of 375 (498447)
02-10-2009 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by RAZD
02-09-2009 8:51 PM


As another resident Deist, let me reply.
The rational conclusion based on evidence is agnosticism, the uncertainty of existence of god/s.
Atheists are on one side of the line of agnosticism, deists are on the other. This may be a fine line, but the distinction is real, like the difference between negative numbers and positive numbers, with the zero position being your fine line.
There are more fine lines than that, becasue atheism isn't a very specific position - it only means that one doesn't believe in god(s), but doesn't necessarily mean that one believes that there are no god(s).
I (and many others around here) am what you'd probably call an "agnostic atheist." I see no reason to believe in a deity, and so I don't. But I don't actively believe that god(s) doesn't exist. I think that in the absence of evidence I cannot know for sure, but I won't believe in something for which there is no evidence.
I consider the question of the existence of god(s) identical to the question of the existence of fairies or invisible pink unicorns. Technically speaking we have no evidence one way or the other - we don't know that they don't exist. But we don't have any reason to think that they do, and so I simply don't have that active belief that such things exist. So too with god(s). Deities could exist, and I simply don't know. But until I have a reason to think they do exist, I have to conclude "probably not," or at least "I don't have any reason to think so."
The atheist believes there is no evidence of god/s and that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence (all A is B, B therefore A logical fallacy).
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, you know, so long as a thorough and appropriate search has been undertaken and failed. If I look for a pen on my desk and find no evidence suggesting there is a pen, the absence of evidence is itself evidence of the absence of the pen.
Absence of evidence is not proof of absence, which is a stronger distinction, and is what your logical statement actually refers to.
If you look thoroughly for something and find no evidence of it, the absence of evidence is supporting evidence that the thing does not exist - it's simply not proof that the thing doesn't exist.
Splitting hairs? Sure - but the rationale behind different flavors of atheism is all about hair-thin distinctions, an absence of faith versus faith in absence.
I have no faith in the nonexistence of god(s). I simply have no faith at all, which forces me to respond "no" to the question "do you believe in god(s)?" in the absence of any evidence.
Conversely, if you were to ask me "do you believe that god(s) do not exist?" I would have to respond "I have no reason to think they do, but I have no active belief one way or another."
The reason I'm an atheist is because I simply and completely reject faith as a method of drawing conclusions. My default position for any proposed entity (from deities to ghosts to pink unicorns) is that I don't think exists until I have a reason to think it does in the form of supporting evidence, with the strength of evidence required being based on how extraordinary the claim is. I don't require much evidence to believe that a cat exists in my neighbor's house, for instance, but I'd require more extraordinary evidence to support the existence of a brown, furry, small humanoid alien who speaks English and eats cats in my neighbor's house.
I find perpetual neutrality about every imagined entity to be untenable - while technically we cannot know whether Alf exists in my neighbor's house, if I look for him and he's not there (and there is no other evidence to be found), the reasonable conclusion is that it is more likely that he does not exist.
Full agnostics require absolute proof one way or the other, and so perpetually trap themselves on the fence. I'm willing to see shades of gray, and say "I don't know, but more likely not."
The deist believes that god/s is/are essentially unknowable, that all evidence points to the way the natural world functions as created, and all we can understand is how it works.
Why believe in any deities at all, though? What prompts your belief that even an "unknowable" supernatural entity exists?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2009 8:51 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 02-10-2009 8:40 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 42 by Buzsaw, posted 02-10-2009 9:57 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 57 of 375 (498573)
02-11-2009 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Buzsaw
02-10-2009 9:57 PM


quote:
Rahvin writes:
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, you know, so long as a thorough and appropriate search has been undertaken and failed. If I look for a pen on my desk and find no evidence suggesting there is a pen, the absence of evidence is itself evidence of the absence of the pen.
Pens are visible to the naked eye. Things like heat rays are not. Try observing a heat ray on your desk with the naked eye. It may be there but you don't see it with the naked eye. You may, however, feel heat in the area of your desk.
An analogy is not intended to cover all possibilities, but rather to make a point - one you have either missed, or intentionally ignored.
Some of us who have been born of the spirit of God and have experienced the effects of God know that God exists similarly as you may know that heat exists on your desk.
Perhaps you have yet to make an appropriate search for God.
I was a Christian for most of my life, Buz. I had the same sort of "evidence" you and others claim to have. I've simply analyzed that "evidence" with a critical mind and concluded that all of my "evidence" was subjective in nature at best.
Objective evidence has been searched for, and is absent.
For example, the Creation myth in Genesis is objectively false. The Exodus is objectively false. The Flood myth is objectively false. If the Christian deity as put forth in the Bible were real, we should expect to find evidence confirming it's extraordinary claims. Instead we find none.
Double-blind studies on the effects of prayer consistently find that there is no significant effect from prayer - or at least nothing greater than a placebo group. If a benevolent, omnipotent deity who answers prayer (as suggested by the Bible) were to exist, we should be able to detect its effect on the world. Instead, we find nothing.
We've looked. We've found nothing. There are plenty of rationalizations for why we haven't found anything, and of course your typical prophesy arguments...but invariably such arguments hold very little water, being either an extremely liberal interpretation that requires dismissing the original words, and/or so laden with confirmation bias that they amount to nothing more than unfalsifiable tripe resulting from obvious cognitive dissonance.
I've looked for evidence of deities. What I've found instead was evidence of a Universe that is internally consistent, and while amazing, not in any way directly indicative of any supernatural "power" behind it.
I've looked for God, Buzsaw, and I used more than my eyes. To re-use the pen analogy, I cannot see the pen, I cannot smell the pen, I cannot feel the pen, I cannot taste the pen, and I cannot hear the pen. I have a typewritten document saying that the pen is on my desk, and a bunch of people who claim I need to have "faith" and that I'll be able to "feel" the pen's presence - but not in any objective, tactile way. Those same people claim that the typewritten document was "inspired" by the pen, but the typewritten document was typed by multiple people over a long period of time. And it's filled with corrections where the copy machine didn't copy a word correctly, and somebody else corrected the copy error. And there are many different versions of the typewritten document, though they all at least agree that the pen is on my desk. Of course, the document also gives the address for the building, and that's wrong, as is the name of the actual company that owns the building. It also says that the pen has been there for over 20 years, when I know that the building itself was built 5 years ago.
Why should I believe that there's a pen on my desk? I don't see any reason to. It might be there, but the evidence I do have suggests otherwise, and all I have in support of the pen's existence is that royally messed up document and a bunch of loons ranting about how I need to "believe," in much the way children are told they need to "believe" in Santa Claus in Christmas movies.
So I's an atheist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Buzsaw, posted 02-10-2009 9:57 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2009 8:02 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 59 of 375 (498575)
02-11-2009 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Buzsaw
02-11-2009 7:33 PM


Re: Strawman Attempt
Buz, you might want to look back. I only just now replied to you - that was anglagard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Buzsaw, posted 02-11-2009 7:33 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 78 of 375 (498741)
02-13-2009 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by dronestar
02-13-2009 10:47 AM


Re: To summarize then
Your notion requires that millions of children horribly die every year to serve as context/canon-fodder for only a few? Ughh, dear lord, what a horrible god he must be.
Aware Wolf, please put this idea back in the oven, it may not be fully cooked.
That's an appeal to consequence. While Aware Wolf's hypothesis is no less a bare speculation with no supporting evidence, it's still a possibility. "God" could well be an asshole. I wouldn't suggest arguing against a position on the basis of its moral implications - that's what the Creationists do.
His suggestion is empty enough in the absence of evidence that parsimony kills it as well as all the others. "Maybe I have a purpose and you don't." "Maybe we all have a purpose." "Maybe 7 people have a purpose." "Maybe you can have a purpose if you believe." All are equally violations of parsimony, because it has never been demonstrated that such a thing as a "purpose" exists in this context, meaning it's an extraneous entity in the equation. One may as well wonder how many invisible pink unicorns like chocolate - it's all nothing more than bare speculation and imagination because there is no evidence suggesting the unicorns (or an objective purpose beyond what people define for themselves subjectively) exist at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by dronestar, posted 02-13-2009 10:47 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by dronestar, posted 02-13-2009 11:45 AM Rahvin has replied
 Message 80 by Aware Wolf, posted 02-13-2009 12:48 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 81 of 375 (498748)
02-13-2009 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by dronestar
02-13-2009 11:45 AM


Re: To summarize then
Just as Percy's self-admittedly irrational "appeal to purposefullness" would be a fallacy in argument for a god.
He's just violating parsimony and going with his subjective "gut" feeling.
That seems to be the key difference between agnostics, deists, and atheists:
Agnostics ignore parsimony completely, deists outright violate it, and atheists use it as a guiding principle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by dronestar, posted 02-13-2009 11:45 AM dronestar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2009 6:10 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 85 of 375 (498773)
02-13-2009 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by RAZD
02-13-2009 6:10 PM


Re: back to confirmation bias vs cognitive dissonance
The most parsimonious - and accurate - answer is that we don't know.
The most parsimonious answer is that extraneous entities are unlikely to exist if there is no evidence suggesting their existence. Parsimony dictates that, all other things being equal, the simplest answer is usually the correct one. In other words, in the absence of evidence requiring the existence of a deity, the conclusion most likely to be correct is that no deity exists.
You seem to be having difficulty comprehending the difference between "likelihood" and "certainty." Very few atheists claim to have anything approaching "certain knowledge" that no deities exist, yet your arguments are targeted exclusively at reasoning that involves such certainty. You are attacking a strawman. This has been expressed to you repeatedly in this thread.
I don't claim to know. I simply hold the existence of a deity in the same regard I hold the existence of fairies and unicorns - I cannot know for sure, but without evidence to support such wild assertions, they are most likely simply figments of human imagination and do not likely exist in reality.
To get from there to atheism requires assumptions. To get from there to deism requires assumptions.
Atheism requires no assumptions. What it requires is no fact-less belief. Babies are born atheists, with no belief in a deity. This is completely different from "knowledge that no deity exists" (and I feel I need to reiterate that yet again because your responses thus far to me and others in the thread have illustrated that you are not seeing the difference between establishing likelihood and a statement of absolute knowledge). It's a simple absence of the belief in a deity, and nothing more.
Agnosticism ignores parsimony entirely by allowing that literally all entities are equally likely to exist despite a lack of evidence. Note that this is missing the "most likely" clause required by parsimony. The agnostic, to remain self-consistent, is required to answer "I don't know" to all imagined entities, from deities, to fairies, to your 5-year-old child's imaginary friend. Parsimony would require that the answer be "probably not."
Deists, of course, simply violate parsimony directly, by outright including an extraneous entity without any basis for such an assertion whatsoever. One may as well insist that the invisible pink unicorn is, in fact, standing three feet away.
Let's say I invent an imaginary creature. We'll call it "Manbearpig." There is no evidence that such an entity exists. No facts exist which can be interpreted as only leading to the conclusion that such an entity has ever walked the Earth. Do you believe in manbearpig?
An agnostic would be required to answer "I have no idea. Maybe."
An atheist (or at least my brand of atheism) would respond "I can't know for sure, but probably not. Come back when you have some evidence to convince me."
Using the deist line of reasoning (or any other theist, really) as it applies to deities, the deist would answer "Yes. I have nothing to base this on, but I believe Manbearpig to be real."
Let's use a mathematical expression:
Given:
2+2=4
AND
2+2+x=4
Does x exist?
Is "maybe" the most parsimonious answer, RAZD?
Certainly not. The parsimonious answer is that 2+2=4 is most likely to be an accurate expression because it uses the fewest possible terms. Adding x is flatly unparsimonious. Parsimony does not require that x cannot exist, but it does state that it is less likely to exist.
Once again, the difference between a statement of likelihood and a statement of certain knowledge cannot be understated.
Not that parsimony is necessarily a guide to truth.
No, it's not. However, it is an excellent guide for accuracy and parsing out unlikely entities from one's worldview. That makes it a useful tool when attempting to reason out truth.
Of course, if one isn't using reason...then I suppose any subjectively-arrived conclusion could be valid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2009 6:10 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2009 8:56 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 133 of 375 (499379)
02-18-2009 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by RAZD
02-10-2009 8:40 PM


Re: tidy bowl goblins are not the issue
quote:
There are more fine lines than that, becasue atheism isn't a very specific position ...
Neither is deism, it's only as you move away from the line that the distinction becomes more clear - either theistic or antitheistic. It is more of a spectrum than a quantum phenomena.
I would place myself very close to agnosticism, but still define myself as an atheist. I do not claim knowledge, I simply have no reason to believe various assertions when those assertions are not backed by evidence.
quote:
I (and many others around here) am what you'd probably call an "agnostic atheist." I see no reason to believe in a deity, and so I don't.
I have a friend that describes himself as an apatheist - he just doesn't care whether there is or is not god/s.
Given the apparent lack of divine interventions in the world and the utter apathy nature seems to display towards us, I would say that any deity that does exist must be apathetic towards our existence, as well.
quote:
Technically speaking we have no evidence one way or the other - we don't know that they don't exist.
Technically speaking we have evidence of religious beliefs in all cultures. We don't have evidence of faith in invisible pink unicorns or tiny green toilet goblins in any cultures (although one might wonder when watching TV ads)
The pink unicorns and toilet goblins still establish the point. Belief is irrelevant - that people believe a thing to be true, regardless of how universal, has nothing to do with whether that thing is true or not. It's an Appeal to Popularity, and thus fallacious reasoning. The pink unicorns and toilet goblins were intended to be unsupported assertions in the same manner that claiming the existence of a given deity without evidence is an unsupported assertion.
Further, the religious beliefs present in "all cultures" are very frequently mutually exclusive, and many have absolutely nothing in common whatsoever beyond claiming the existence of "something" supernatural. Comparing animists to deists, or atheistic ancestor worshippers to believers in the Greek pantheon, or Buddhists to Christians seems rather disingenuous to me. Each of those beliefs is a "spiritual" one, but they are so vastly different that lumping them together as "universal spiritual experience" doesn't make sense.
This is similar to the Creationsit claim that the "universality" of flood myths is evidence that the Great Flood of the Bible actually took place. Once again, this is an appeal to popularity, but it's also a poor appeal to popularity. Flood myths are not universal, and many of them are so wildly different from each other that lumping them together demonstrates ignorance bordering on dishonesty.
In the case of the Flood, we typically say that the near universality of myths involving floods is likely due to the near universality of local floods, and not a global flood like several of the myths claim. The extraordinary, supernatural claim is typically the result of an exaggerated mundane event. In cases where such extraordinary claims bear significant similarity across multiple geologically distant cultures, the "universality" is best explained by the fact that those mundane events are common globally, in the absence of evidence supporting a global Flood.
As always, claims are not evidence.
quote:
If I look for a pen on my desk and find no evidence suggesting there is a pen, the absence of evidence is itself evidence of the absence of the pen.
And yet this does not mean that your pen has disappeared from the haunts of men, carted off by invisible pink unicorns or tidy-bowl goblins. This just means that the pen is not in the area of {A} that you have confirmed is {B}.
Hence the tentativity. My atheism is extremely tentative - all I require is evidence to change my position. I've made a reasonable search myself and found none; if anyone would like to make a claim regarding a deity and back it up with actual evidence, then I will alter my position.
quote:
If you look thoroughly for something and find no evidence of it, the absence of evidence is supporting evidence that the thing does not exist - it's simply not proof that the thing doesn't exist.
Splitting hairs? Sure - but the rationale behind different flavors of atheism is all about hair-thin distinctions, an absence of faith versus faith in absence.
The confidence you can have is proportional to the confidence you have that you know all {A} and all {B}.
I have very little confidence in much of anything. That's what we've been trying to tell you for quite some time now: I am not confident at all that no god/s exist. I am simply also not confident at all that they do exist. That second statement means that I do not believe in any deities, which defines me as an atheist. The first statement means that I'm awfully close to agnosticism.
I leave the confidence of belief to those who accept faith as a valid basis for drawing conclusions. Since I have found faith to be an inaccurate basis for drawing conclusions at best, I do not have the luxury of confidence.
Your arguments seem to focus on the confidence of atheists - you claim that atheism requires confidence that no god/s exist. I have no such confidence, because I cannot disprove an unfalsifiable speculation. I similarly have no confidence that invisible pink unicorns or toilet gremlins or fairies do not exist. I simply have no confidence that they do exist, and so I can be said to not beleive in them. This means that your argument targets a strawman - you are not arguing against my position.
quote:
I find perpetual neutrality about every imagined entity to be untenable ...
Which, curiously, explains why you, and many people, make the choice you do, not that the choice is one based purely on reason.
Please explain how my position, as described above, is not based on reason.
quote:
Why believe in any deities at all, though? What prompts your belief that even an "unknowable" supernatural entity exists?
Because I am open-minded about spirituality, I've had spiritual experiences, and I remain skeptical of all claims of positive knowledge in this area.
I remain skeptical and open-minded as well. Whenever I am presented with a new extraordinary claim, my default response is "why should I believe you?" If the claim is not backed by evidence, I cannot be confident that the claim is true, and so I cannot "believe" the claim. If the claim is backed by evidence, I can have a degree of confidence proportional to the strength of the supporting evidence that the claim is true, and I would "believe" the claim.
I have had "spiritual experiences" as well, but these have consitently been wholly subjective and therefore not evidence of anything. Subjective experiences do not give me confidence in any given objective conclusion - no matter what I "feel," my feelings do not necessarily have anything to do with the objective existence of a real entity. I can "feel" my dead grandmother's presence, for example, but that subjective feeling is not evidence of the objective existence of my dead grandmother's spirit.
As of right now, I have no reason to be confident in the existence of a deity. Until I uncover or am presented with evidence that gives me that confidence, I remain an atheist, and I find that tentative position to be entirely rational. If you disagree, please demonstrate how, and be specific. My goal is not to uncover subjective "truth," but rather to maintain rational consistency with objective facts as they are known to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 02-10-2009 8:40 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 169 of 375 (499798)
02-20-2009 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by New Cat's Eye
02-20-2009 9:52 AM


Re: Back to Basics: is the distinction correct or not? That is the question.
That's do to the lack of evidence. We can't really tell what this 'something' is in detail but it does seem that this 'something' is there.
If you don't know what "something" is, how can it "seem to be there?"
What "is there," CS? What defines it? Surely "it" has some defining properties? If not, then I agree: "something" is basically everywhere. Whether space, energy, or matter, the Universe has "something" all over the place. There are multiple "somethings" on my desk; the desk itself is also a "something" by your broad usage.
Or are you actually claiming the existence of something more specific? If so, please give those defining qualities. How would I be able to differentiate your "something" from anything else? For all I know, my computer is your "something."
Are you referring to some "creative force" that is responsible for the existence of the Universe? There's no reason to think that the Universe was "created," and plenty of reason to think of the Universe as simply existing with a given set of properties. What would make you think that the Universe was "created?" What would differentiate between a "Created Universe" and an "Uncreated Universe?" How would you detect the presence of your "creative force? If you cannot detect "it," or describe "it," what makes you think "it" is there?
Are you referring to some objective "purpose" to the Universe, or life? What would that "purpose" be? If you cannot define the "purpose," how can it "seem to be there?" How would you know? Can you tell the difference between a Universe with a "purpose" and one without? What makes you think there is a "purpose" at all?
Are you even able to describe your "something" in terms as general as those?
Your "gut" doesn't really work - subjective human emotional "feelings" don't have any direct tie to reality. There are people who "know in their gut" that the Earth is flat to this day - why is your "gut" more accurate than theirs?
Do you have anything objective? That is, a fact that we can all see? It's a fact that many people believe in the sorts of supernatural, nebulous "things" we're discussing, but that doesn't have anything to do with thier actual existence - widespread faith and belief are not themselves evidence, unless you consider Appeals to Popularity logically valid. If you have one or more facts that can be used to support your assertion that "something" is there, please share - but I fail to see how you can have an objective fact that relates to an undefined "something." Avoiding specifics regarding your "something" provides unfalsifiability, but it also prevents you from supporting your assertion that "something" exists. It makes your "something" meaningless and irrelevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-20-2009 9:52 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-20-2009 2:56 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 172 of 375 (499811)
02-20-2009 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by New Cat's Eye
02-20-2009 2:56 PM


Re: Back to Basics: is the distinction correct or not? That is the question.
quote:
If you don't know what "something" is, how can it "seem to be there?"
When you have enough info to determine it has a source but not enough info to define the source. If you blindly stuck your hand into a bag and felt something furry, then you'd could easily tell that there was something in the bag without knowing what it was.
You'd at least know that "it" was furry, and small enough to fit in the bag. Those are "characteristics," and they help differenciate the "thing in the bag" from "some other thing." Further, the ability to detect the "thing in the bag" with one of your five senses means that its presence is a fact - its existence and the few properties you know about it are objective.
Bringing the discussion back to your "something out there," what differentiates your "something" from anything else? Is your "something" furry? Is "it" sentient?" What makes you think "it" is there at all?
RAZD brought up the example of three blind men each examining different parts of the same elephant. They wouldn't know what the something is but they could tell that something is there.
And they could all physically touch the object - and I would daresay that the three blind men would actually be able to use the objective facts of the texture and shape of the elephant to determine many of its properties, and possibly even determine that it is an elephant. Removal of sight is not equivalent to the removal of all objective methods of detection.
Can you touch your "something out there?" Which of the five senses do you use to detect its presence? What objective properties have you determined it to have?
If you have not detected your "something" with any of your five senses, and neither can you point to an objective fact that tells you anything about your "something," what makes you think "something" is there at all? How do you differentiate your "soemthing" from any other "something," real or imagined?
quote:
What "is there," CS?
We're talking about god/s.
Humor me. What is/are "god/s?" What are the properties of a "god?" How is a "god" different from a squirrel, or a book?
You can see where I'm going here - we need to be able to define what we're looking for before we can even determine whether "it" exists or not.
quote:
What defines it? Surely "it" has some defining properties? If not, then I agree: "something" is basically everywhere. Whether space, energy, or matter, the Universe has "something" all over the place. There are multiple "somethings" on my desk; the desk itself is also a "something" by your broad usage.
Or are you actually claiming the existence of something more specific? If so, please give those defining qualities. How would I be able to differentiate your "something" from anything else? For all I know, my computer is your "something."
Are you referring to some "creative force" that is responsible for the existence of the Universe? There's no reason to think that the Universe was "created," and plenty of reason to think of the Universe as simply existing with a given set of properties. What would make you think that the Universe was "created?" What would differentiate between a "Created Universe" and an "Uncreated Universe?" How would you detect the presence of your "creative force? If you cannot detect "it," or describe "it," what makes you think "it" is there?
Are you referring to some objective "purpose" to the Universe, or life? What would that "purpose" be? If you cannot define the "purpose," how can it "seem to be there?" How would you know? Can you tell the difference between a Universe with a "purpose" and one without? What makes you think there is a "purpose" at all?
Are you even able to describe your "something" in terms as general as those?
We're not trying to establish that god/s do/es exist/s.
We're providing a rational reason to believing that god/s exist/s.
Then you're failing to see my point. If you canot even define what "god/s" are, how can it be rational to believe that "god/s" exist?
You said "something" is "out there." I agree - depending on your definition of "out there," we know objectively that various forms of matter and energy, and space itself all exist "out there." My computer exists "out here." Jupiter exists "out in space." Where are you referring to when you say "out there," and what defines your "something" in a way that differentiates "it" from other "somethings?" If I were to find your "something," how would I know I had done so?
The topic is the differences between atheists and desits. The atheists seem to think that the deists' beliefs in god are irrational while the deists don't. I'm providing that rational explanation (or at least trying to).
So far I haven't seen a rational reason for thinking that "god/s" exist - you haven't even defined what "god/s" are, and how to differentiate a "god" from anything else that may or may not exist. That's not even speculation, it's simply nonsense.
quote:
Do you have anything objective? That is, a fact that we can all see?
No.
Then what makes you think "it" exists? Do you have a reason to assert that "something" exists? If not, how is your assertion reasonable? If you cannot even define what your "something" is in a way that one can differentiate your "soemthing" from anything else real or imagined, how can it be said that your assertion has any meaning whatsoever?
quote:
It's a fact that many people believe in the sorts of supernatural, nebulous "things" we're discussing, but that doesn't have anything to do with thier actual existence - widespread faith and belief are not themselves evidence, unless you consider Appeals to Popularity logically valid.
Its not that widespread faith and belief are evidence, themselves, of each belief. Its that widespread faith and belief, and the similarities between them, is enough to rationally suggest that everyone is talking about something that actually does exist.
How so? You're appealing to popularity - that many people believe in "something" is a valid reason to believe that "something" exists. That's a logical fallacy, CS. How is that rational?
Further, what similarities? We see similarities in the religious beliefs of closely related belief systems (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all branches of the same Abrahamic faith), but not in geographically separated areas. YHWH bears no resemblance to Zeus or Thor, or to Buddha or Kali. Various animist religions don't even have a deity let alone one that compares to yours. Your "something" is only tied together by such wildly different beliefs when you fail to define your "something" at all, which then makes the assertion that "it" exists meaningless.
How is that reasonable?
Again, this does not establish that something does, in fact, exist but it is a rational explanation for why people believe that it does.
How is it rational? It's an appeal to popularity that doesn't even exist. It has no basis in fact. The only reason you've given to believe that "something is out there" is a logical fallacy based on an outright falsehood. How is that a reason at all? How is such a conclusion reasonable?
Let's recap:
You say "something is out there." You call "it" one or more "gods," but you cannot define what that means. You haven't given any properties decribing "god/s" to differentiate your "something" from anythign else in existence or even in your imagination. You can't even define "out there," so we don't know where to look. The lack of clarity in your assertion makes it meaningless on its face so far, but I'd be happy to see you provide an actual definition.
You say that the reason to believe your unidentified, undefined "something / god" exists is that many other people believe that various "somethings" exist - but they all have decently defined "somethings," and they tend to be very different from one another; there isn't even a popular concensus to appeal to, and if there were, it would still be a logical fallacy.
You admit that you have nothing factual or objective to base your assertion on. In efect, you have no reason to make such an assertion. You have confidence that "something" exists, but no reason to have such confidence.
So how is your assertion that "something is out there" reasonable, CS, when you have no reason to assert it in the first place?
I think the reasonable position, when no objective reason for confidence exists, is to have no confidence in such an assertion. In effect, I don't believe you. You've given me no reason to do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-20-2009 2:56 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 256 of 375 (501677)
03-07-2009 12:42 PM


Possibilities
The fact is, we don't even know whether such things as Immaterial Pink Unicorns or deities can exist.
We know that life can exist because it exists here.
It follows that there should be greater confidence in the possibility of extraterrestrial life than in the possibility of deities or IPUs.
It's a very small sliver of evidence in favor of extraterrestrial life, but it's more than purely faith-based beliefs like the IPU or deities for which no evidence exists whatsoever.

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 317 of 375 (503608)
03-20-2009 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by Straggler
03-20-2009 2:09 PM


Re: Follow the Evidence
Just to pick this out:
Do you really think that choosing a deistic concept that is so immune to direct refutation that it would be impossible to conceive of anything more immune to direct refutation if one intentionally tried to, makes your deistic concept more believable?
Frankly it smacks of a desperate need to invent something that cannot be taken away from you.
The deist "concept" being talked about in this thread is so general and nonspecific that it cannot even be pinned down as a singular concept discrete from any other. An "unknowable" deity can be literally anything because it has no attributes to differentiate it from something else. It's not a concept at all - it's a halfhearted "unknown."
This goes far beyond mere unfalsifiability. The Immaterial Pink Unicorn is unfalsifiable, but it's still a discrete concept - an Immaterial Yellow Bunny is easily identified as a similar but separate concept. The "unknowable" deity proposed by deists in indistinguishable from any individual concept that anyone anywhere identifies as simply "god." This means the deistic deity is indistinguishable from the Immaterial Pink Unicorn, YHWH, Zeus, or a Holy Teacup.
Therefore I maintain, as I said earlier to CS (and was ignored), the deistic deity is the final extrapolation of the "god of the gaps." When no more unknowns exist for "god" to be hidden in, the only remaining path is to make "god" itself unknowable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Straggler, posted 03-20-2009 2:09 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by Straggler, posted 03-20-2009 3:37 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 319 of 375 (503610)
03-20-2009 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by Straggler
03-20-2009 3:37 PM


Re: Follow the Evidence
I guess my post titling at the time was a product of knowledge borne from that paragon of reliability and indicator of supreme truth that we are all so fond of. Namely subjective "evidence".
Somehow I just knew.......
It occurs to me that a discussion is warranted on why some subjective experiences are touted as having relevance to objective reality, while the vast majority are not.
For example, a dream in which I had a chat with Jesus could potentially be given more value than a dream in which I fell off of a cliff. Or a dream which, after the fact, can be interpreted as "prophetic" could be given more credence than the hundreds of others that had no relevance to the waking world regardless of interpretation.
It would seem that those who rely upon subjective experiences as "evidence" supporting their "unknowable" deity must engage in special pleading - those subjective experiences and feelings that support their deity must be regarded as having more relevance to reality than all of their other subjective experiences.
Perhaps later today I'll write up a new thread topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Straggler, posted 03-20-2009 3:37 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by Straggler, posted 03-20-2009 4:20 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 358 by RAZD, posted 05-07-2009 10:23 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 359 of 375 (507770)
05-07-2009 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 358 by RAZD
05-07-2009 10:23 PM


Re: once again
To bring it into context with this thread, atheists are at pains to say that they see "no reason" to believe in god/s. In this vein, deists see no reason not to believe in the existence of some kind of god/s.
Which means that deists engage in special pleading, because universal application of the "believe in x so long as there is no reason not to believe in x" would result in belief in fairies, ghosts, goblins, Zeus, and the Invisible Pink Unicorn, none of which has a reason for disbelief.
Really RAZD, we're just going to repeat ourselves over and over. I don't see any progress being made at any point in the future. There's a reason your proposal for an additional thread was turned down, and frankly I think you're just annoyed that I snuck in a rebuttal before the last thread was re-closed. Let it go - unsatisfying as it may be, this conversation was concluded a long time ago: I think your position is completely irrational, and you disagree. I think I've supported my argument sufficiently for you to need to concede, and you disagree with that as well. Fair enough; but there's really nothing new for either of us to bring to the table.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by RAZD, posted 05-07-2009 10:23 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by RAZD, posted 05-09-2009 12:52 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 363 of 375 (507988)
05-09-2009 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by RAZD
05-09-2009 12:52 PM


Re: once again, with feeling ... (so special)
It also means that everyone who likes blue is engaged in special pleading when they say they prefer blue to pink. Surprisingly there is no logical reason to prefer any color over any other color - they are just wavelengths, after all. Curiously, it is a fact that there are many people that prefer blue. There are also people that prefer pink. One preference does not make the other invalid.
This does not change the fact that I prefer blue nor the fact that there are people that prefer pink. This preference is not based on choice or logical deduction, it is just a part of me.
Oh come on.
Are you really saying that asserting the existence in reality of an entity is comparable to personal color preference?!
Personal color preference, taste, human emotion, all are subjective value assessments.
Asserting the existence of a deity asserts that the deity exists in objective reality.
The two are not the same, they;re not even comparable. Or do I get to choose that my salary is three times larger based on my personal preference now? Perhaps I can assert that the Immaterial Pink Unicorn existsm and that this is a personal preference not based on logic?
Perhaps the Creationists are right, the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, there was a global Flood, and evolution's accuracy is based on personal preference, just like preferring blue over red?
What foolishness. Objective reality has nothing to do with our personal feelings and preferences. Believing that a deity exists requires making an assertion about objective reality. It has nothing to do with preference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by RAZD, posted 05-09-2009 12:52 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by RAZD, posted 05-09-2009 3:08 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 365 of 375 (507995)
05-09-2009 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by RAZD
05-09-2009 3:08 PM


Re: once again, with feeling ... (so special)
Im done, RAZD. We're not getting anywhere, and I don't see that changing in the near future. I'm not even going to bother posting a rebuttal. I concede nothing, I still think your faith is irrational, I still think the IPU argument is perfectly valid, and I still think you've shown absolutely nothing convincing to show otherwise.
As far as I'm concerned, this conversation is over. We've hit a brick wall, and I'm agreeing to disagree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by RAZD, posted 05-09-2009 3:08 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by RAZD, posted 05-09-2009 4:56 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024