(July 27, 2010 at 3:37 pm)The Omnissiunt One Wrote: Atheists often say (I've seen numerous members of this forum do it) that atheism is merely a lack of belief in God, so atheists have no burden of proof. We make no positive statement about God's non-existence, it is argued. My problem with this is that it's unclear how this is different from agnosticism. Agnostics aren't sure whether God exists or not, but they lack belief in a god as much as they lack disbelief.
Oh dear, you've already failed.
Agnosticism and Atheism are not mutually exclusive.
I do not believe that the existence of god can be proved or disproved, so i hold no belief in god. This makes me both an atheist and and agnostic.
Quote:A few months ago, while debating some wishy-washy fence-sitters over at Agnostic Forums, I devised an argument to show that the default epistemic position is that there probably is no god.
I agree - statistically speaking even. Out of all the possible outcomes god is just one of many many different proposed ideas. That alone makes it probabilistically low. Then you consider the fact that there is not a single shred of evidence nor a single logically valid argument for his existence.... Even super-out-there string theory is at least logically coherent.
Quote: God's non-existence is more likely than his existence, a priori. It's a very simple argument, and I'm going to set it out for you in a few steps, like a formal logical argument in philosophy. See what y'all think.
Okay.
Quote:1) The human mind can conceive of an infinite, or at least very large, number of things.
My brain has a limited capacity for storage and a limited capacity for processing data, therefore it cannot possibly conceive of an unlimited number of things... So from this point on i approach your argument through the statement "the human mind can conceive of a very large number of things".
Quote:2) There is no necessary correspondence between these ideas and reality. We can easily demonstrate this, because I can imagine there being a giraffe on my desk, but there is not. Nor are there any skunks, perpetual motion machines, 12th century minstrels, or purple fairies called Gerald.
Agreed
Quote:3) Only if there is evidence for a particular idea is its existence in reality probable.
This statement assumes we have the knowledge required to make such claims, which imo is entirely naive.
The fact that we know of no evidence for a particular something does not make the something improbable. All we can say is what explanation is best supported, considering the total information available . It is exactly akin to saying "we have no evidence for the cause of inflation therefore the cause of inflation is improbable"... That's garbage, as you can see.
Quote:4) Because there are so many things we can think of, none of which is necessarily real, what we think of is very unlikely to be real.
This only works in situations where no evidence favors either position, such as the cause of universal inflation.
Quote:5) There is no evidence, or no good evidence, for God's existence (this, of course, could be disputed, but that's no doubt been done and dealt with elsewhere).
Agree.
Quote:6) The concept of God is very unlikely to exist in reality.
Agreed.
Quote:7) Ergo.. there probably is no god.
That is agnosticism buddy...
Example: Of the 20 or near abouts explanations i have conceived of for the cause of inflation, none are supported by evidence, therefore we cannot logically conclude that one is more likely than any other. God is one such explanation therefore is just as likely as all any other individual explanation.
Since no explanation is any more supported than any other, the only logical position is to withhold judgement - This is agnosticism.
Specifically excluding God as an explanation is irrational.
Quote:I'd appreciate your comments on this argument. Any flaws that you can see, please tell me. Especially if you think it's a load of shit.
Objections noted.
.
