I don't believe in god because it's too specific.

(July 11, 2012 at 12:52 am)Adjusted Sanity Wrote: I don't believe in god because it's too specific.

Well that makes a refreshing change!

(July 11, 2012 at 12:52 am)Adjusted Sanity Wrote: I don't believe in god because it's too specific.

If you are not being sarcastic, I then shouldn't believe in you because you are too specific.

I'm sure he's fucking gutted.

I don't believe in god because because I don't see the point. More specifically, if some form of creator being does exist I see no point in worshipping it, nor do I see a point in convincing myself/others that it has set guidelines for me to live my life by. "God" as written about by man is a complete invention. Could it all have been started by one being? Perhaps, but I can't possibly know that certainly in either direction. I do believe that it is not this character of God that man has created, however.

(July 10, 2012 at 11:43 pm)Epimethean Wrote: Do we have an abstract facepalm smiley?

---

(July 11, 2012 at 12:37 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote:

(July 11, 2012 at 12:13 am)Skepsis Wrote: If you embrace the idea that lack of evidence isn't a reason for lacking belief in a proposition, then by virtue of that idea you necessarily accept any proposed postulate.

I have studied logic a little and I would disagree.

1. The absence of evidence isn't always evidence of absence
2. Therefore I must accept all God claims (catos "proposed postulate")

How does 2 follow from 1?

I find your stubborn rejection of reason disturbing. and by the way, watching Craig videos is not studying logic, it is studying ANTI-logic. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You are a perfect example of this.

Quote:Philosophy of Religion Online Textbook, Dr. Philip A. Pecorino,Professor of Philosophy, Queensborough Community College, CUNY


http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/p...-Proof.htm

Rejecting the Burden of Proof

There are those who will refuse to accept that the burden of proof rests with those making positive claims. They do want to claim that:

"miracles exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

"souls exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

"angels exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

"deities exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

Those who behave in this manner are rejecting the use of reason. They want to believe that X is true or that X exists and to believe it without evidence or even against evidence to the contrary. They want to have their beliefs remain intact and not subject to refutation or to reexamination for fear of needing to alter their beliefs. They rest their beliefs in X existing or in X being true not on evidence and reason but on FAITH and even on BLIND FAITH and when against reason and counterevidence on willfully BLIND FAITH. Such behavior is within the realm of Religion and not at all acceptable amongst those who would pursue Philosophical discourse or who would ask that reason and evidence support claims.

(July 11, 2012 at 12:37 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote:

(July 11, 2012 at 12:13 am)Skepsis Wrote: If you embrace the idea that lack of evidence isn't a reason for lacking belief in a proposition, then by virtue of that idea you necessarily accept any proposed postulate.

I have studied logic a little and I would disagree.

1. The absence of evidence isn't always evidence of absence
2. Therefore I must accept all God claims (catos "proposed postulate")

How does 2 follow from 1?

I haven't studied logic. I feel the same about "studying" logic as I do studying, say, the average charge of Mars's surface.
Logic, to me, is a tool and in depth studies of this tool wouldn't make it any better at destroying your God claims.

With that out of the way, I'll address your objection in the greatest detail I can.
Proposition (Made by you): "The rejection of God is an illogical leap from there being no evidence for such a being" (Paraphrase, I'm not quoting directly)
Responce: If there isn't any evidence for God yet you insist that the God hypothesis ought not be ruled out, then you must also logically affirm the same of anything that lacks evidence. Because the number of things that lack evidence is concieveably infinite, the number of unfounded beliefs you must accept is also infine- that is, if you want to hold to your claim that things that lack evidence shouldn't be ruled out as unfounded.

You have the same problem that so many thesits I have spoken to have: You think that you either believe a given proposition or its inverse, which is simply untrue. How do I know you think this? By virtue of your responce. You thought I was making a claim myself, saying that God doesn't exist because of lack of evidence.
I wouldn't make that claim in such a way that might reflect I know this with certainty. No, instead I say I know God doesn't exist in the same way I know Santa doesn't exist.
The both of them lack evidence and perform feats beyond the wildest imagination, making them both, conservatively, very unlikely.

At this point, I can't see how you might make contention with this. If you try to then you are truly a theist, because only a theist can look into the agape jaw of cold, unrelenting logic only to swat it with your shoe and then ignore it.

---

(July 11, 2012 at 4:05 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote:

(July 11, 2012 at 12:52 am)Adjusted Sanity Wrote: I don't believe in god because it's too specific.

If you are not being sarcastic, I then shouldn't believe in you because you are too specific.

I think he meant that your God has too many specified qualities that conflict with reality to be believable, not that specificity is a trait of things that are unbelievable.

(July 10, 2012 at 5:27 pm)jonb Wrote:

Far from it, I have many hats this one is yours

Love it! I'll wear it with pride!

I think you'll find that's my hat. My Sunday Best hat.

It's going to smell like dog now. Ahh, let him keep it.