Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How is this a factual question? To know if something exists or not has to do with what evidence is able to be brought to the table. Things exist even if we humans don't yet have proof.
I'm afraid you're very confused. There's a difference between saying "the existence of x is a factual question" and "There is sufficient evidence to determine whether x exists".
Regardless of whether anyone can adduce sufficient evidence to prove whether god exists, the question of the existence of any god is a factual one, and the answer is either, "yes, this god exists" or "no, this god does not exist." It's just like Santa Claus or unicorns.
1) "There is a lot to know, and not enough time in the day to learn all of it. To a certain extent, we all have to place our trust in others opinions, for better or worse. There are always some compromises involved in our day to day existence. I acknowledge that tomorrow it will probably not snow, because my local weather report does not predict it. That does not mean that I'm absolutely sure that it will not snow, just that I don't have the motivation to study to become a meteorologist and form my own informed opinion. I trust that the Weather channel or my local newspaper, radio station or television network has experienced meteorologists working for them.
At the same time, I also recognize that any meteorologist is fallible.
I don't consider myself a person of faith by any stretch of the imagination, but I also have to recognize that many of my opinions are actually a matter of faith in what/who I consider knowledgeable authorities. Because I trust in logic and scientific reason, what/who I consider a knowledgeable authority is not the same as what/who a religious person would. I find science, logic and reason to be a whole lot more reliable than the Bible or a local Rabbi or Priest, or a politician, for that matter.
That said, I also have to recognize the fallibility (both potential and real) of those authorities, and my own personal fallibility in choosing what authorities to trust."
and...
2) "Unfortunately, it is just not enough to say that creationism is bogus because of P.Z. Meyers' frequent lambasting of Young Earthers, for example, you should have an idea why something is or is not true. It would be hard to learn all of the ins and outs of evolution if that was not your field or if you do not have the time, but knowing the basic facts and the weight of evidence behind evolution is enough to state your case. Not everyone can know everything, but there is a level of education that is required for proper skeptical scrutiny. Many helpful books, websites, blogs, etc., are ready and willing to aid any deficiency. A skeptic who is worth her salt should, despite time restrictions, be curious enough to know the fundamentals of science (or a particular topic). Support from scientists and experts is then only a bonus.
Not everyone has to be a scholar. If you know the fundamentals of science, you can figure out even when supposed experts are wrong.
Skepticism would then mean placing reasonable trust in experts when they align with what you think the evidence says, and removing that trust when they do not. Expert testimony is a powerful addition to the weight of evidence, but clear understanding without it is as, if not more, persuasive.
Why I did post these, both taken from an essay by Kyle Hill, and from this fascinating website, the James Randi Educational Foundation [jref] , are that they explain rather well why we of the sciences and of atheism's general consensus, are founded not on some blind faith or unthinking acceptance of logic and reason, but rather on it's overall objective, rather than purely faith-based subjective, appeal.
More to the point, it's based on it's ratonal, common sense and intuitive findings, which are then well supported by others whom, yep, for very good reasons, we do trust. Get it?
So when we finally, after possibly years or decades as in my case, conclude there are not any real good reasons for "doubting" at this point, and given that no new evidence ever comes up that is not faked or selectively presented, we make our minds up so that we can then move on productively.
As well, why doubt? Is it just possibly because, for all of us, our "untimely" death approacheth too soon, and we get scared? I think that's a big part of it, frankly. Hedging your bets with God.
Hmmm... You assume He doesn't know you're faking it just to get in to The Big Party in the Sky?
I'm afraid you're very confused. There's a difference between saying "the existence of x is a factual question" and "There is sufficient evidence to determine whether x exists".
Regardless of whether anyone can adduce sufficient evidence to prove whether god exists, the question of the existence of any god is a factual one, and the answer is either, "yes, this god exists" or "no, this god does not exist." It's just like Santa Claus or unicorns.
Are you having trouble understanding that?
Ooo nasty. Evidence does not mean that something does or does not exist. Electricity always existed even in prehistoric times. Reality is reality. As for what constitutes evidence, now that is debatable. But more importantly is how we as a person figure out if something exists. And quite frankly using "logic" alone will restrict that ability because there is more to this life than what pure "logic" tells us.
Were it to be shown that there was an actual "meaning" to life in and of itself then of course it would be an "important topic" as you put it. Until such a time as this is established then it is not. What meaning we find in life is the meaning we ourselves subjectively assign to it and no more.
It would appear many of you would just like to assume it, and then discuss it. It is not an assumption that is really open to us other than for a little fun fantasy role play.
Maybe you find no meaning in life. So if that's the case I feel sorry for you.
The question of 'negative evidence', the materialist /Naturalist default and 'how do we know what we know' has been discussed before and I don't mind running over it again. I will begin (perhaps ) by saying
(a) scientifically validated evidence can be and should be taken as reliable. Speculation, guessork and religious convictions should not.
(b) The evidence for natural/material processes is general and universal. Attempts to show a 'Mind' behind it, either through science, philosophy or rhetorical trickery have not produced validated results.
(c) therefore, all the sound and valid evidence we have does not provide any really convincing support for a 'Mind' (Aka 'God') and the only logical position is to regard it as unproven, unsubstantiated and nothing more that supposition and therefore not worthy of belief.
(d) speculations about 'what we don't yet know' are invalid to cite as evidence for a 'God'. It might very well equally NOT support a 'God'. So far, pretty much everything else has tended to validate the materialist/natural default.
And (e). This is just talking about a postulated sortagod, the intelligent mind that runs the universe. Biblegod is a different matter. This utterly appalling, reprehensible and unfeasible being is evidentially supported only by a single book which has been demonstrated to unreliable insofar as the religious claims are concerned.
I do hope that this straightens out apparent your misapprehensions of what is evidence and what isn't.
So I'm thinking unless "science" tells you something you aren't able to decide for yourself. If a person chooses to not believe because they don't see any evidence that is ok. I do not disagree. But if a person sees enough evidence for themselves who can argue with that?
Show me your ton of evidence, I'd be very interested to know.
Basically what AREQUIPA said. If there was a god affecting the universe, we'd expect to have found it with the high level of scrutiny we've been placing on it. As it turns out, everything seems to nicely follow mathematical rules. You can say it's not absolute proof, but it is good evidence just as we have good evidence unicorns don't exist on Earth even though we haven't looked everywhere at once.
On the other hand, every ancient religion has been absolutely disproven so if there happens to be a god, nobody really has a clue as to the specifics.
So I'm thinking unless "science" tells you something you aren't able to decide for yourself. If a person chooses to not believe because they don't see any evidence that is ok. I do not disagree. But if a person sees enough evidence for themselves who can argue with that?
Well we can argue, if the person wants to, but I agree. There are many people here who have 'personal' reasons for their belief, and the more intellectually honest ones concede that this is no reason for anyone to accept what they believe about those reasons, and i am content them to believe what they want.
However, when those are are put forward as reasons why others should perhaps think along those lines, then arguments is demanded, especially if the other explanations are dismissed or ignored.
Appeal to the invalid argument or logical fallacy of 'there is so much we don't know' should not form part of any logical and rational argument. It is a false argument (1), and is especially fallacious when it is used to suggest that some presently unknown information may be discovered which could totally invalidate everything we now consider valid data. That is not only not sound reasoning, but is deceptive in that it is more applicable to the sort of religious and mystical speculations that are supposed to gain credibility from this sort of line.
As I explained in a thread on Plantinga where doubts were aimed at validated evidence, it is more valid to aim the doubts at unvalidated claims.
(1) argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic [Wiki]
Maybe you find no meaning in life. So if that's the case I feel sorry for you.
Did I say that? Even once? No. I did not. So keep your words out of my mouth as I clearly have enough of my own.
I said the exact opposite, that we find meaning ourselves in our own lives and this is a good thing. What there does not appear to be however is a meaning in life objectively in and of itself and that is a massively different statement to the tosh you just shoved into my mouth for me.
We subjectively assign and explore meaning in our own lives with ourselves. We do not need to assume life itself holds some inherent and objective meaning in order to do so.
Basically what AREQUIPA said. If there was a god affecting the universe, we'd expect to have found it with the high level of scrutiny we've been placing on it. As it turns out, everything seems to nicely follow mathematical rules. You can say it's not absolute proof, but it is good evidence just as we have good evidence unicorns don't exist on Earth even though we haven't looked everywhere at once.
On the other hand, every ancient religion has been absolutely disproven so if there happens to be a god, nobody really has a clue as to the specifics.
I think people tend to put too much faith in the ability of humans to find proof through this scutiny you mention. We can't even figure our where it came from so how are we supposed to figure out if there is a God or not?
Well we can argue, if the person wants to, but I agree. There are many people here who have 'personal' reasons for their belief, and the more intellectually honest ones concede that this is no reason for anyone to accept what they believe about those reasons, and i am content them to believe what they want.
However, when those are are put forward as reasons why others should perhaps think along those lines, then arguments is demanded, especially if the other explanations are dismissed or ignored.
Appeal to the invalid argument or logical fallacy of 'there is so much we don't know' should not form part of any logical and rational argument. It is a false argument (1), and is especially fallacious when it is used to suggest that some presently unknown information may be discovered which could totally invalidate everything we now consider valid data. That is not only not sound reasoning, but is deceptive in that it is more applicable to the sort of religious and mystical speculations that are supposed to gain credibility from this sort of line.
As I explained in a thread on Plantinga where doubts were aimed at validated evidence, it is more valid to aim the doubts at unvalidated claims.
(1) argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic [Wiki]
It is true that from a courtroom evidence point of view we do not have proof. But belief goes beyond that. There are other things to take into account. You could say circumstantial evidence is one of the factors. And if the goal is to figure out if God exists or not wouldn't it make sence to pull in all the data? Isn't the truth more important than debating logic, even for yourself. If there is a God wouldn't you want to know. So if that is true wouldn't you want to find a way to that truth however possible?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You assume He doesn't know you're faking it just to get in to The Big Party in the Sky?
) by saying
