Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith?

Hi RAZD, If there is no evidence, then for an object it is the same as nonexistance. Pleases refer to Sagan's dragon for more if you don't completely understand. Knowing that God doesn't exist is not a possible position, which you are right about, as one would have to search the entirety of the universe- and the outside- to find out for sure. However, atheists live on the assumption that God does not exist and thus have no reasonable excuse to use him as an excuse in their lives.Why do you think that god(s) are/may be required? Just because there is a possibility (as there is of all things- messy QM ) does not mean it is probable or that we should live on that assumption. I don't usually back other posters up this thoroughly, but Rrhain is right. There is no "why" needed: purpose is an invention of human minds. Your "why" is, in fact, unneeded and unfounded chocolate sprinkles. Nor can garden fairies or the FSM. Why do you rule them out?T&UEdited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given.

---

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts

​

I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes

​

"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams

Come on Phage0070, start dealing with the logic, not your peeve/s biase/s and preconception/s about atheism Curiously, we are not talking about "decisions" to "accept" statements. We are talking about the logical FORM of the statements. Interestingly, in logic, Y = notX means that they are necessarily a dichotomy BY DEFINITION, likewise "true" and "not true" are necessarily a dichotomy.Amazingly, the existence of an agnostic position is totally irrelevant to the logic of the statements and the form of the argument. Logic is concerned with the logical structure and the validity of the premises and conclusions and NOT about the content. Incredibly, all we have is your personal assertion that they are changed and NOT a logical evaluation of the premises and the logic of the statements.Unfortunately, for you, logic is like math, it isn't about opinion/s and belief/s, and it certainly isn't about whether opinion is a valid measure of reality or not.

quote:

---

if {"gods do not exist" is not true,} then {"gods do exist" is true,} ... they have the same meaning and one can be used in place of the other and maintain the meaning of the original,

---

OR: Likewise:

quote:

---

if {"gods do not exist" is true} then {"gods do exist" is not true} ... they have the same meaning and one can be used in place of the other and maintain the meaning of the original.

---

OR: This is like 1+1=2 in logic. Except that, interestingly, we are not talking about the rejection of a claim, we are talking about the logic of the statement.In logic a statement is like a formula, and substitution of equivalent phrases is how statements are tested. Amazingly, you have not demonstrated this. Again, you are talking about your biases and preconception/s of beliefs about what you think the statements should say to conform to your biases and preconception/s, and NOT ABOUT THE LOGIC OF THE STAEMENTS.The logic is independent of the specific argument, and that is why X and Y were used -- to wean you from sucking in your biases and preconceptions when they are IRRELEVANT to the logic.This is why placeholders are used to evaluate statements. And curiously, this is still totally irrelevant to the logic of the statements. Which you have absolutely failed to demonstrate with any proper logical evaluation of the statements.Fascinatingly, once again, in logic Y = notX means that they are necessarily a dichotomy BY DEFINITION, likewise true and not true are necessarily a dichotomy.Failure to understand this is failure to understand basic logic.You are trying to argue that your opinion about atheism, agnosticism and theism are valid, so the logic must be false.This is erroneous thinking.You are replacing a necessarily absolute logical position with your own opinion of what that position should be, and NOT dealing with the logical position as it is, and then claiming that the logic is false because it doesn't fit with your preconceptions and biases about your beliefs.Logic doesn't work that way.And you still avoid answering about D and E -- what's the problem?

quote:

---

Let me put them all in one list and see what you think:

​

Tell me, if you can, using what you should have learned by now, which of these statements is more logical than the others:

• person A: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is not true, therefore it is logical to believe that X is true,
• person B: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true, therefore it is logical to believe that X is not true, or
• person C: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true or that X is not true, therefore it is logical to say that we don't know.
• person D: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is not true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that X is true, and
• person E: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that X is not true,

​

By your argument B and C were logical, but A was not. Where do you stand on D and E?

​

Now, once again, let Y = notX

​

• person A: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is not true, therefore it is logical to believe that Y is true,
• person B: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is true, therefore it is logical to believe that Y is not true, or
• person C: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is true or that Y is not true, therefore it is logical to say that we don't know.
• person D: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is not true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that Y is true, and
• person E: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that Y is not true,

​

The logic shows that either both A and B are logical, or both are invalid, that both A and B use the logical fallacy of "the part for the whole," and thus that they are both invalid.

​

Which of the remaining 3 positions in these lists do you think are logical?

---

I suggest that, rather than rail against the logic of the statements, that you could start with the premise that the B position is not a true (in your opinion) atheist position because it is absolute. This conforms with the fact that A and B are both invalid logical statements, and allows you to move on to discussing D and E.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) • • •

Hi Teapots&unicorns Coelacanths. Guess they just didn't exist for over 65 million years.The absence of evidence is evidence of the absence of evidence.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : absinthe

---

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) • • •

Hi Richard Townsend, Yet it still leaves the original claim with a burden. The burden for positive claims is well known and understood. Lesser known and understood is the need to support any claim of relative certainty, including negative claims. Indeed.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) • • •

I'M NOT DEBATING THAT!My point is that rejection of a claim does not imply the acceptance of its opposite. Rejecting a claim of X does NOT mean that I accept notX to be true! Then watch closely. Lets go back to where you try to equate Person A(Y) with Person B(X): (1) Lets replace the "not true" in the original statement with "false". (We can agree that "not true" and "false" can be exchanged, right?) This makes your transition look like:
"There is no objective empirical evidence that shows "gods do not exist" is false," (This implies that there is evidence that gods do not exist.)
into
"There is no objective empirical evidence that shows "gods do exist" is true,"That transition makes no sense. Look at the last statement; does the lack of evidence showing that gods exist mean that there must be evidence that gods don't exist? Of course not! "Failure to understand this is failure to understand basic logic." D and E both appear to be logical. I consider it appropriate to consider the possibility of anything to be true.

Hi Onifre. So as to not lead off topic I've responded to your message here.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Hi Phage0070 Again we are not talking about claims, or rejections of claims, we are talking about the logical structure. Iff you agree that false == not true. Proper logic form is to use A and notA (or -A) to prevent confusions. (green changed to orange for legibility)No it doesn't(1) "There is no objective empirical evidence that shows
(2) "gods do not exist" is false,"The absence of evidence showing {"gods do not exist" is false,"} in no way implies that there is evidence showing it is true. Again, the problem is in your perception/s, and not in the logical structure of the statements.There is no objective evidence that shows (A)Does not mean\imply\suggest there is objective evidence that shows not(A) None of the statements about the absence of evidence for (A) imply that there is evidence for not(A). And yet your latest attempt to force reality to fit your opinion relies on a false statement, so your logic is flawed and invalid. Again. Message 332

quote:

---

quote:

---

if {"gods do not exist" is not true,} then {"gods do exist" is true,} ... they have the same meaning and one can be used in place of the other and maintain the meaning of the original,

---

​

OR:

{notX = not true}
=
{notX = not true}
=
{X = true,}
QED

​

Likewise:

​

quote:

---

if {"gods do not exist" is true} then {"gods do exist" is not true} ... they have the same meaning and one can be used in place of the other and maintain the meaning of the original.

---

​

OR:

{notX = true}
=
{not notX = not true}
=
{not notX = not true}
=
{X = not true}
QED

​

This is like 1+1=2 in logic.

---

I can also use - (as in negative) in place of "not" for these logical statements if that helps to make it clearer: And still you fail to move forward. Sad. Message 307 STILL not addressed:

quote:

---

Let me put them all in one list and see what you think:

​

Tell me, if you can, using what you should have learned by now, which of these statements is more logical than the others:

• person A: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is not true, therefore it is logical to believe that X is true,
• person B: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true, therefore it is logical to believe that X is not true, or
• person C: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true or that X is not true, therefore it is logical to say that we don't know.
• person D: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is not true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that X is true, and
• person E: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that X is not true,

​

By your argument B and C were logical, but A was not. Where do you stand on D and E?

​

Now, once again, let Y = notX

​

• person A: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is not true, therefore it is logical to believe that Y is true,
• person B: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is true, therefore it is logical to believe that Y is not true, or
• person C: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is true or that Y is not true, therefore it is logical to say that we don't know.
• person D: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is not true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that Y is true, and
• person E: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that Y is not true,

​

The logic shows that either both A and B are logical, or both are invalid, that both A and B use the logical fallacy of "the part for the whole," and thus that they are both invalid.

​

Which of the remaining 3 positions in these lists do you think are logical?

---

Again, I suggest that, rather than rail against the logic of the statements, that you could start with the premise that the B position is not a true (in your opinion) atheist position because it is absolute, and as such does not conform to (your opinion of) what atheism really includes.If B ≠ atheism, then {B is false} does not mean that {atheism is false}.This conforms with the fact that A and B are both invalid logical statements, and it allows you to move on to discussing D and E and their relevance to atheism, agnosticism and theism.Do we move on? Or do we spin around on your invalid logic again?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : magenta

---

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) • • •

and I expected you to continue with your MO of re-stating your same old postion after we've already gotten past it... We agreed that the existence of god is one of the possibilities explaining the widespread belief in god so we don't have the absolute zero you're requiring to avoid actually weighing the evidence but instead just claiming that the other side must be more likely.

I don't think you will ever move on, due to the impenetrable callous between your ears. I'm tired of your squirming and attempts to push your assumptions.

Well I'll take that as as much of an admission as I am going to get that the human invention position is the most evidenced and thus most rational one to take. So your answer to the question of why human belief in gods is widespread is itself evidenced by the widespread human belief in gods. Please tell me you can see the inherent circularity of this position?The underlying problem here CS is that rather than seeing belief in gods (or subjective religious expereinces) as phenomenon with all sorts of possible explanations you instead take your preferred explanation from the infinite array of possible explanations and then cite the phenomenon itself as the evidence for the explanation. But ths reasoning is upside down, back to front and ultimately circular.

Your cognitive blindspot regarding the difference between evidenced and unevidenced possibilities manifesting itself yet again. You really do believe that the possibility of as yet undiscovered species on Earth is as unevidenced as are gods don't you? Incredible. Truly incredible.But anyway with regard to Message 317This whole issue of subjective evidence (and your wilful conflation with immaterial evidence) lies at the heart of your 'Perceptions of Reality' thesis. The principle of which is that a number of subjective experiences ultimately equate to a form of objectification.In the case of empirically detectable phenomenon this argument can be made. Simplistic as it is. However where the entity in question is inherently unable to be detected by any empirical means whatsoever any commonality of subjective experience tells us far more about the commonality of the psychology of those having the experiences than it does about any aspect of an external and unknowable non-empirical reality.On what possible basis can we conclude otherwise?

No, I haven't answered that question. I have offered a possible explanation for the evidence of the widespread belief in god. No, I do see multiple possible explanations.And I maintain that your argument that human invention is the infinetly more likely explanation is unfounded.

But RAZD are you a Message 268?When a grown man cannot deny the existence of Santa Claus without completely contradicting himself there really is little more that can be done to expose the flaws in his arguments.Enjoy.

OK. What is that explanation? And what evidence is there for it? So which ones do you consider to be the evidenced possibilities?

I'll take that as as much of an admission that I'm going to get that your human invention is infinetly more likely argument has been refuted.