Agnosticism vs. Atheism

Crashfrog, How would you determine the non-existence of a God? So you believe there is no transitional taxa between bats & non-flying mammals based on the fact that there is no evidence of one?I doubt it, such arguments are logically flawed, & you can't have it both ways. There is one type of evidence, & it is positive, everything else is a logically flawed argument from ignorance, or a compositional/divisional fallacy. You have positive evidence that something doesn't exist, or you don't, & are therefore unable to say anything about it's non-existence.I think I understand where you are coming from, however (I may be wrong). Consider that you have two theories, only one can be right, & the confirmation of one will falsify the other. In science this happens all the time, but with the concept of God, what would falsify it? Nothing. There is no such competing theory. It IS unfalsifiable. There is no fact you can be in possession of that will falsify Gods.Mark

.[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-22-2003]

Crashfrog, And how do you know that the God is significant vs. insignificant? How would you determine what facts are attributable to a significant God? Enter the fuzzy unfalsifiable world of ID. I don't think you'll find any evidence that'll prove God doesn't exist, either, so transitional forms & evidence that disproves God are on the same level according to you. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Who are you to be telling the universe how active or significant of a God it has? Secondly, absence of evidence isn't of evidence of absence. It simply, logically, is NOT. It is an argument from ignorance; because God hasn't been proven, it is false. There's a fallacy of composition/division thrown in as well, depending on who's making what argument. It isn't, how do you attribute facts to not being the work of a God? I put it to you that within a logical framework, you can't.Well, I've made the same challenge to Jack, provide a testable falsifiable hypothesis (with positive evidece) that God doesn't exist. I think you'll find that finding evidence to reject God with is on about the same par as ID.I think the salient point is, when there is no evidence of something, there isn't anything you can do to raise or lower the tentativity of that things non-existence (think about it).Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-23-2003]

Hi Ned, Actually, I agree, but for the purposes of demonstration, the analogy was good. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. It was difficult to think of an evolutionary example for precisely the reason you mention, all those awkward corroborating facts. Perhaps a better analogy would be abiogenesis? Anyway....Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-23-2003]

Crashfrog,I think I have probably gone about the significant/non-significant god business the wrong way. The fact is, neither Christians nor anyone else has any idea what characteristics a god may have. They may presume to know, & the best you can do is to falsify those presumptions, but that’s all you do. You haven’t falsified god.For example, as you rightly point out, a groups assumption that their god treats them favourably can be falsified by simply showing that that group has no advantage over non-religious people, but all you’ve shown is that their presumption is wrong, not that a god doesn’t exist. I understand the difference, but it is still a logical flaw. A lack of evidence is not positive evidence, the scientific method requires positive evidence with which to make inferences, a lack of evidence does not allow that kind of inference because it it essentially embodies a logical fallacy. In other words, falsification requires positive evidence.To give an obvious example of that line of reasoning that demonstrates it to be false; before giant squids had been discovered, it was impossible to falsify their existence on the basis that there was no evidence in favour of their existence, which is evidenced by their actual existence.It still amounts to the same thing, a positive assertion with no positive evidence, ie an argument from ignorance. You are still deducing from a position of ignorance. The only fact that you have to report is that you have no positive evidence of god, & that isn't a falsification. I have no idea what a God/s characters may be, neither does anyone else, regardless of what they think. It isn't mine, or anyone else’s job to furnish you with them. If you want to falsify god in this way it is incumbent on you to determine gods characteristics, no one else knows them, & armed with that knowledge, falsify them...... No, not really, the capitalisation is a bad habit. I’m talking about the falsification of god or gods, whether they are allegedly known to man, or not. Again you assume that christians have knowledge of their god & think him benevolent. So what if he isn't benevolent? All you have actually falsified is that god is benevolent, not it’s existence.I’ll reword slightly, produce a testable falsifiable hypothesis (with positive evidence) that a god or gods don't exist.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

Mr Jack, Let's have that positive evidence, then. I'm not interested in you being able to falsify peoples notions of what a god is like, but to falsify the entity itself.Mark

Mr Jack, It is not playing games. Even if you could falsify the characters these people associate with their Gods, you have provided no positive evidence whatsoever that god/s don't exist, be they the same or different. You haven't covered the notion that god is an entity utterly unkown & unrevealed to man.Gods existences are not falsified by falsifying characters that are not factually & definately a part of that gods character, a christians say so isn't fact. You could reasonably not believe in a god for this reason, but it presents no positive evidence with which to falsify.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

Mr Jack, It is if it created the universe. Quite agree, but they could all be wrong and there still be a god. Who said it didn't have properties? They are just unknown to you.And wrong, it would be a non-sequitur, it is quite incorrect to come to a conclusion of non-existence, you are basically affirming the consequent which is of the form, if A then B, B therefore A. If god doesn't exist there would be no evidence, there is no evidence, & therefore god doesn't exist. But the invisible incorporeal one might. Positive evidence is exactly the same as used by science. It is an observation of something, not nothing.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-24-2003]

Crashfrog, Or that has taken action that you cannot detect.You can falsify all the human myths you like, & you still haven't falsified God. It does matter if it created the universe, or universes, even. You simply would not exist without it.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

Jack, Let me qualify, I think everyone would agree that an entity that created the universe is a god, whether humans presume to know about it is neither here nor there. BUT,even if they did, falsifying one aspect of someones "god" doesn't falsify the whole, in the same way falsifying PE only falsifies PE, not the entire theory of evolution. This is denying the antecedent; If A then B Not A Therefore, Not B. God is supposed to be benevolent to it's followers, clearly he isn't therefore he doesn't exist. PE is a part of evolution, there is no evidence of PE, therefore evolution is false. And I'm telling you, as a point of FACT that an argument of this form is flawed; affirming the consequent; if A then B, B therefore A. If god doesn't exist there would be no evidence, there is no evidence, & therefore god doesn't exist. You've flipped the argument from evidence of non-something to evidence of something. In context your challenge would be to provide evidence that the bunny doesn't exist. So what positive evidence of giant squids was there before there we knew they never existed? By your argument giant squids didn't exist, then they did.It is entirely possible something exists & that you have no evidence for it, this is why affirming the consequent is a flaw. But this still misses the point, in order to gain knowledge of somethings non-existence you have to have evidence that it doesn't exist, put another way, to make a positive assertion you need positive evidence, thus far I have seen nothing but logical flaws. I don't write the rules on logic, Jack, but I do try to stay consistent with it.I maintain it is impossible to falsify the existence of god/s.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

Mr Jack,Just for clarification as I'm unfamiliar with some of your notation, is:A => B, !B therfore !A.the same as compmagesif A then B, not B therefore not A. ?Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

Hi Jack,If A then B, not B therefore not A, is not a valid argument in this case. The argument allegedly falsifies god, but because it is not true that the consequent actually is a consequent at all, the argument fails to falsify.What evidence would you accept that god created the universe? It’s an impossible question to answer, really, since you have no idea how he did it, & therefore no knowledge of the evidence that should be left behind. The best you can say is that, god/s should have left evidence that I would recognise, since this isn’t absolutely true, then the argument above is not absolutely conclusive. Hence still no falsification. How? In order to logically (& by definition, absolutely) falsify god your premises/consequents etc must be absolutely true, but you have know way of knowing that they are. You are defining god as an entity that created the universe isn’t considered god, unless it has one or more human worshippers?Regardless, it now has one. Me. It has become a god. You mean when my god is proven, & atheism becomes irrelevant? You are appealing to non-existent knowledge.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

Hi compmage,See my post to Mr Jack, above. True. The difference being is we know what evidence should be left.Mark

compmage, It is valid if the consequent is true (gods leave evidence). Which ain't necessarily so.Anyway, & Jack, & Crashfrog, if you're reading, very, very, enjoyable discussion.Mark

Mr Jack, Yes, I am. A falsification that disproves all god/s. If we agree that no such thing exists, then we agree. But there isn't. I understand what you mean, you can falsify a biblical literalists version of God by showing that the flood didn't occur, but the entity itself hasn't been falsified. Showing that powdered rhino horn doesn't improve your sex life doesn't disprove rhino's exist, or that rhino's horns exist. Even if none of us had seen a rhino, it still wouldn't.It's immense fun blowing righteous christian myths out of the water, I'll grant you, that's why I'm here, anyway! MarkPS I'm going to be busy this WE, so I'm not sure how many post's I'm going to get in before then.------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."