Some gods definitely don't exist, because they contradict themselves or reality. As bennyboy pointed out, the tri-Omni deity defies observed reality (as well as being logically incoherent). The God of Abraham that flooded the earth and stopped the sun in the sky for the convenience of the Hebrew army doesn't exist because those things never happened. The God of Deism is a different kettle of fish, really only suffering from being unfalsifiable and there being no good reason to think it's real. I put the God of Deism at close to, but not actually, zero probability.

As an aside, fredd bear, I would say 'There is no God' attracts the burden of proof, but 'I believe there is no God' does not. How would you prove that's what you believe to someone who won't take your word for it, and how could anyone prove you don't really believe that? We have posters who take the position that atheists don't really disbelieve, one of the reasons it's irritating is that it's basically calling anyone who claims to be an atheist a liar, and you can't prove you're telling the truth to someone who can never be convinced you're not lying about what you think is the case in your own head.

(March 5, 2019 at 12:01 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Some gods definitely don't exist, because they contradict themselves or reality. As bennyboy pointed out, the tri-Omni deity defies observed reality (as well as being logically incoherent). The God of Abraham that flooded the earth and stopped the sun in the sky for the convenience of the Hebrew army doesn't exist because those things never happened. The God of Deism is a different kettle of fish, really only suffering from being unfalsifiable and there being no good reason to think it's real. I put the God of Deism at close to, but not actually, zero probability.

As an aside, fredd bear, I would say 'There is no God' attracts the burden of proof, but 'I believe there is no God' does not. How would you prove that's what you believe to someone who won't take your word for it, and how could anyone prove you don't really believe that? We have posters who take the position that atheists don't really disbelieve, one of the reasons it's irritating is that it's basically calling anyone who claims to be an atheist a liar, and you can't prove you're telling the truth to someone who can never be convinced you're not lying about what you think is the case in your own head.

I agree with what you're saying, but that some gods are more unlikely than others doesn't mean the possibly more likely ones get any sort of pass. Like you said, I still put the probability of most of the gods at zero or at very close to zero. There's simply NO reason to think that such a thing exist. People accept it as self-evident because it's an idea that a lot of people believe in that has been around for a long time. In reality, there's no real reason to accept the idea of a divine creator any more than that there are invisible unicorns that control the weather.

The former idea has been around for a long time and is embedded in many cultures/traditions, so even people who don't buy into those cultures/traditions tend to say, "Well, some VERSION of what they're saying must be true, otherwise, why do so many people believe it?" - whereas the latter is seen as an utterly ridiculous idea that isn't given a moments thought. But really, there's no reason to believe one more than the other.

(March 4, 2019 at 5:36 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(March 4, 2019 at 11:25 am)Deesse23 Wrote: What does that have to do with you (not) knowing what you actually believe?  
The word "know" in this sentence has nothing to do with the content of your belief, just with your belief per se. In your quote "know" is used in relation to the content. This is not the same.

Unless I have a pragmatic reason for believing in something (like the sentience of others than myself), my beliefs are an expression of my knowledge.  For example, I know that people fly in jet planes all over the world; therefore, if you start talking about Skydaddy, then I will say, "I believe God as you describe it cannot represent reality."  It COULD be that Skydaddy is invisible, or wiped out everyone's memory of having seen him in the sky, but I have sufficient knowledge that I'm willing to declare as gnostic atheist about that particular definition.

Now, either you know what Schrodinger's Cat is, or you don't.  If you do, then you'll understand a conditional belief depending on knowledge.  Since the cat itself is in a state of superposition, then if you ask me "Do you belief the cat is alive?" I will be unable to answer you-- I believe it either is or isn't alive, dependent on whether a radioactive particle has decayed; I must hold my beliefs to a superposition.  If I was able to get knowledge about that particle, then I'd be able to form a VERY strong belief, like say 90%, that the cat was alive.  The 10% would depend on my assessment of the reliability of the mechanism, and maybe suspicions about whether the tester was actually willing to kill a kitty.

Let's take a simpler question. I say, "I have an apple on my desk. Do you believe I have an apple on my desk?" You will rely on various bits of knowledge: apples are very common objects, and can often be found on desks but not usually. People don't normally lie for no reason about mundane things, but this guy seems to be trying to make a point. bennyboy is a tricky and dishonest debater, so I think he's likely to lie about having an apple. You will then arrive at a belief with a degree of confidence.

But what if I say, "I have X on my desk. Do you believe I have X on my desk?" You COULD say "Not knowing what X means, I lack a belief in that." But in my opinion, that would be a silly thing to do. What I would do in this case is reserve a belief statement until I collected more information: what does X mean? If it means elephant, I'd say that I believe you do NOT have X on your desk, because I know that elephants are much bigger than desks. If it means pen, I'd say that I believe you DO have X on your desk, since I know that pens are very commonly found on desks. If you refuse to tell me, or are unable to articulate X, then I'd say that I didn't know if X was on your desk, and please stop wasting my time.


This can all be very simply resolved. You tell me what God means, and I will probably be able to formulate and express a coherent belief. Unless you will do that, then I will remain agnostic. Not agnostic atheist, just agnostic.

---

(March 4, 2019 at 2:12 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: If you don't know if you believe then the answer is that you do not believe and are in fact an agnostic atheist.

It is binary, it could change from second to second but at any given time you are either and atheist or a theist.

Who's this "you" you are referring to? It's a shorthand for the verbal expression of a very complex organism, the brain. It's perfectly possible for parts of a brain to disagree on some question of existence. The experience of the conscious ego is this: When faced with a question, you wait for the various parts of your brain to present an answer to your conscious awareness, and then verbalize it. Sometimes, this is difficult-- not because of a lack of anything, but for quite the opposite reason.

A rock lacks a belief. A person in conflict doesn't lack a belief. They have conflicting beliefs which they cannot resolve down to a single answer.

---

(March 4, 2019 at 1:27 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Please explain what you think the problem with weak atheism is?

Because, as far as I can tell, it is, just not being convinced that gods exist. That seems like the standard

I have no problem with people taking a weak atheist position. However, for me personally, identifying with the lack of an idea is pointless. I don't like being railroaded into a semantic which, while literally possible, is such a poor descriptor of my own state of belief.

Quote:If by strong atheism, you mean being convinced, with certainty, that gods do not exist. Then I, and many atheists also hold that position.

Me too, about most God ideas I've been presented with. I consider myself a gnostic Atheist with regard to the Christian God idea/ideas, for example.

(March 5, 2019 at 11:37 am)EgoDeath Wrote:

(March 5, 2019 at 11:11 am)bennyboy Wrote: The problem with these ideas is that they are plausible enough philosophically, but there's really no way to gain the knowledge required to sensibly form an actual belief around them.  One might believe on a hunch, but there's nothing more to go on.

Right, I'm of the opinion that if we don't know, we should just say we don't know.

With this, I agree.  And that is precisely why I declare as agnostic, and do not choose to identify by the term "agnostic atheist."

---

(March 5, 2019 at 12:26 pm)EgoDeath Wrote: I agree with what you're saying, but that some gods are more unlikely than others doesn't mean the possibly more likely ones get any sort of pass. Like you said, I still put the probability of most of the gods at zero or at very close to zero. There's simply NO reason to think that such a thing exist.

I can think of at least one reason to to think a non-religious God might exist, though it is logical in nature, and not much provable by material evidence.

I'd say, for example, that like begets like. Material processes, it seems to me, are like to beget material processes only. Since there is mind now, it is possible or likely that there has always been mind as part of the material system we call the Universe, though maybe not that we'd recognize as such. A universe which is completely devoid of mind, and then some organic molecules evolve on a tiny blue planet and poof! there's sentience-- this universe seems very strange and unlikely to me. In fact, the idea is so hopelessly anthropocentric that it seems to me it must be rooted in religious dogma.

If, right from the start, whatever allowed for the existence of material systems which were sentient, already included sentience, then I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to call the genitive philosophical property or entity "God." Maybe we shouldn't call it that-- since we wouldn't want a material panpsychism to serve as a point of reference for religious fucktards-- but it certainly seems like a reasonable possibility philosophically to me that at the Big Bang, there was the seed for both material and mind (or, if you prefer, the property of material which we call "mind").

redacted:

I'm not a good enough philosopher to argue  the point with EgoDeath. IE that to say "I believe there is no god" does not attract the burden of proof.

I would however, be interested to learn the reasoning behind your claim.

What's the problem with accepting the BOP? If a Christian wants to debate Skydaddy with me, I'll use evidence, logic, and Scripture to demonstrate that their view is hopelessly implausible.

(March 5, 2019 at 5:34 pm)bennyboy Wrote: With this, I agree. And that is precisely why I declare as agnostic, and do not choose to identify by the term "agnostic atheist."

It's already been explained to you MULTIPLE times why agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive. That you refuse to recognize this is your problem, not mine. For all intents and purposes, you ARE an agnostic atheist. Whether or not you choose to adopt said title is up to you.

The issue is, you enjoying the idea of calling yourself a blue unicorn doesn't mean that I have to. So, you're an agnostic atheist, whether or not you like it.

If calling yourself "agnostic" - and nothing else - tickles your clit, be my guest - I don't really care. Maybe it allows you to sit on the fence more comfortably, I don't really know, but either way, you must have a wooden stake up your ass at some juncture, which doesn't sound comfortable.

(March 5, 2019 at 5:34 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I can think of at least one reason to to think a non-religious God might exist, though it is logical in nature, and not much provable by material evidence.

I'd say, for example, that like begets like. Material processes, it seems to me, are like to beget material processes only. Since there is mind now, it is possible or likely that there has always been mind as part of the material system we call the Universe, though maybe not that we'd recognize as such. A universe which is completely devoid of mind, and then some organic molecules evolve on a tiny blue planet and poof! there's sentience-- this universe seems very strange and unlikely to me. In fact, the idea is so hopelessly anthropocentric that it seems to me it must be rooted in religious dogma.

If, right from the start, whatever allowed for the existence of material systems which were sentient, already included sentience, then I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to call the genitive philosophical property or entity "God." Maybe we shouldn't call it that-- since we wouldn't want a material panpsychism to serve as a point of reference for religious fucktards-- but it certainly seems like a reasonable possibility philosophically to me that at the Big Bang, there was the seed for both material and mind (or, if you prefer, the property of material which we call "mind").

The problem is, your oversimplification of the origin of life is totally nonsensical and not something any rational-minded, scientific person would subscribe to. This "poof" that you ascribe to the origin of life is much more akin to something a creationist would come up with than anything a rational-minded scientist would postulate. No scientist thinks that "some organic molecules evolve[ed] on a tiny blue planet and poof! [Life was formed!]" So, while that's a nice little straw-man you knocked over there, it doesn't really prove much except maybe that you don't really understand how science works.

The prime mover god begs more questions than it answers. And the god of the gaps doesn't even deserve a response. So yea, there's not much else I have to say.

(March 5, 2019 at 6:05 pm)fredd bear Wrote: redacted:

I'm not a good enough philosopher to argue  the point with EgoDeath. IE that to say "I believe there is no god" does not attract the burden of proof.

I would however, be interested to learn the reasoning behind your claim.

My reasoning behind which claim?

(March 5, 2019 at 5:34 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(March 5, 2019 at 11:37 am)EgoDeath Wrote: Right, I'm of the opinion that if we don't know, we should just say we don't know.

With this, I agree.  And that is precisely why I declare as agnostic, and do not choose to identify by the term "agnostic atheist."

You seem to be going with the more specific definition of atheism here, as opposed to the more inclusive sense of the term. If we're going with the latter sense, then you still would be an atheist just for the fact that you lack belief in a god. Even if you're not sure whether or not to call something that clearly exists as "God" or whatever, the fact you don't hold the statement "God exists" to be true makes you an atheist (in the more inclusive sense). An "I don't know" answer to that statement does not preclude you from being an atheist (in the more inclusive sense).

Quote:I can think of at least one reason to to think a non-religious God might exist, though it is logical in nature, and not much provable by material evidence.

Speculating about possible ways a god can logically exist is not the same thing as believing that god exists.

Quote:I'd say, for example, that like begets like.  Material processes, it seems to me, are like to beget material processes only.  Since there is mind now, it is possible or likely that there has always been mind as part of the material system we call the Universe, though maybe not that we'd recognize as such.

It's possible, but it's not clear to me if this is the solution to the hard consciousness problem (or if the problem itself really is a problem). That said, a lot of smart thinkers do have strong disagreements with the whole idea of hard emergentism of the mind, so it's something to at least consider for sure.

Quote:A universe which is completely devoid of mind, and then some organic molecules evolve on a tiny blue planet and poof! there's sentience-- this universe seems very strange and unlikely to me.  In fact, the idea is so hopelessly anthropocentric that it seems to me it must be rooted in religious dogma.

I agree the whole mind spontaneously emerging because of something to do with the brain itself does come off as a "it just is" kind of thing which bugs me personally, but this could just simply be a psychological/intuitive problem on my part and not a problem with the mind emerging from complex matter.

Quote:If, right from the start, whatever allowed for the existence of material systems which were sentient, already included sentience, then I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to call the genitive philosophical property or entity "God."  Maybe we shouldn't call it that-- since we wouldn't want a material panpsychism to serve as a point of reference for religious fucktards-- but it certainly seems like a reasonable possibility philosophically to me that at the Big Bang, there was the seed for both material and mind (or, if you prefer, the property of material which we call "mind").

If you believe that something existed/exists which is worthy of the term "God", then you're some form of theist. It doesn't matter what it may be. Whether we're talking something supernatural, the universe itself, aliens, or even human beings. If you consider any of them to be a god/gods, you are more a theist (but of a kind very different from religious types).

Otherwise, you would be an atheist (in the more inclusive sense of the term).

My opinion, of course.

(March 5, 2019 at 7:02 pm)EgoDeath Wrote: It's already been explained to you MULTIPLE times why agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive. That you refuse to recognize this is your problem, not mine. For all intents and purposes, you ARE an agnostic atheist. Whether or not you choose to adopt said title is up to you.

Let's say I see a pregnant woman walking down the street. Do I believe she's having a boy? Do I believe she's having a girl? Am I an a-boyist if I don't have an active belief that it's a boy? Am I an a-girlist if I don't have an active belief that it's a girl?

No. I know she's having a boy / girl. My belief is not missing, it's in a state of superposition resolvable only by knowledge.

This is my position on the God idea in general. I don't lack a belief in god, or in not god. I believe in god / not god, and which one it turns out to be depends on knowledge about a level of reality to which I don't have access.

Your position sounds to me a lot like those who insist: "A photon MUST BE either a particle or a wave. It can't be both or neither, because that's physically impossible!" Well, you've got to wake up to the fact that not only is ambiguity real, it's the default state of reality: a photon is particle/wave until it's resolved by the act of collecting knowledge. It's absurd to form a single belief about the mortality Schrodinger's cat; but it's perfectly reasonable to say you don't know if it's alive.

The existential truth about a philosophical God is hidden inside Schrodinger's box, and nobody has the key, or probably ever will.

The existential truth about any god not only is not hidden, but as it's undefined, does not even merit any position with respect to it.
It's (the idea) nothing but acculturation and a bad habit.
The idea has no more value than that of Pink Sparkly Unicorns.