RE: Why do you not believe in God?
July 11, 2012 at 6:34 am
(This post was last modified: July 11, 2012 at 6:36 am by Skepsis.)
(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.
My conclusion is that there is no reason to believe any of the dogmas of traditional theology and, further, that there is no reason to wish that they were true.
Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.
-Bertrand Russell
Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.
-Bertrand Russell