Disproof Atheism Society

[fr0d0]

Unknown how... Physically
Known how... Philosophically

If x is unknown physically, you believe it or not.
If x is known Philosophically you should believe it.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Unknown how... Physically
Known how... Philosophically

If x is unknown physically, you believe it or not.
If x is known Philosophically you should believe it.

This weird physical/philosophical distinction isn't necessary.

If you don't know whether something is true or false, you have a belief about it with a truth value of unknown. You can't then say that you "believe it is true" or "believe it is false" because you already believe it is unknown. You'd have a contradictory belief. You're saying x is true and x is unknown.

[archangle]

na, now we do we atheist look like a religion/ no friggen way.

[Napoléon]

Unknown how... Physically
Known how... Philosophically

If x is unknown physically, you believe it or not.
If x is known Philosophically you should believe it.

This weird physical/philosophical distinction isn't necessary.

If you don't know whether something is true or false, you have a belief about it with a truth value of unknown. You can't then say that you "believe it is true" or "believe it is false" because you already believe it is unknown. You'd have a contradictory belief. You're saying x is true and x is unknown.

It is necessary in fairness.

What I think fr0d0 is saying is that although you cannot prove x by physical means, you can come to a conclusion about it being true or not by other means. This obviously requires belief in some form, I don't agree with it, and you're right, it doesn't make it any less ludicrous, but with many of the religious their ideas of truth and knowledge are very different to most rational people.

[Jenny A]

This is it for me:

x is most probably true so I believe x
x is most probably false so so I don't believe x.
x is unknown or highly uncertain so I choose to either feel comfortable not knowing or to investigate x.

Many theologians however like:

If x is God and x is unknown, I will take a leap of faith and believe x.

C.S. Lewis in particular comes to mind. Some like Kierkegaard argue that the leap of faith is the necessary part and that if Jesus' death and resurrection could be proved an essential part of Christianity would vanish. I find this crazy, but at least it's honest crazy--as opposed to he's in your heart you just have to look.

---

I guess it does depend on what definition of god you're using. I am of the mind that the christian god, and other gods that have been thought to 'dabble in human affairs' could be debunked.

It can. The theist can always redefine God but it was pointed out at the discussion that there are only so many ways you can define God without it turning into something else. All theists I gather would agree that God is at least the "greatest possible being".

I looked at the God Disproved website. It appears they are interested in disproving particular gods. That at least in some cases is quite doable. If for example God is the being described in the Bible and he created the earth as stated in Genesis he's been disproven long ago.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

x is most probably true so I believe x
x is most probably false so so I don't believe x.
x is unknown or highly uncertain so I choose to either feel comfortable not knowing or to investigate x.

Yeah. These are tautologies which is more or less my point. For someone to say "x is true and I believe x is true" is meaningfully the same as "x is true." It's a tautology.

The opposite of a tautology is a self contradiction which is what "x is true but I don't believe x" and the like are.

The leap of faith idea -- that you can just "will" to believe something is incoherent to me.

---

This weird physical/philosophical distinction isn't necessary.

If you don't know whether something is true or false, you have a belief about it with a truth value of unknown. You can't then say that you "believe it is true" or "believe it is false" because you already believe it is unknown. You'd have a contradictory belief. You're saying x is true and x is unknown.

It is necessary in fairness.

What I think fr0d0 is saying is that although you cannot prove x by physical means, you can come to a conclusion about it being true or not by other means. This obviously requires belief in some form, I don't agree with it, and you're right, it doesn't make it any less ludicrous, but with many of the religious their ideas of truth and knowledge are very different to most rational people.

Oh, if that's the case, fr0d0 thinks I require empirical evidence. That's not what I'm saying is required at all. At the most basic level, I'm saying you need a "reason." A "reason" is just whatever you feel satisfies the question "why?" Whether the reason is good or not is another matter.

[fr0d0]

Yes I'm always making the distinction between empirical evidence and not. Intellectual would be a better word than philosophical perhaps.

I like what jennyA had to say.

I do feel that my "leap of faith" was inevitable considering my intellectual understanding. It did seem to be a pretty radical move all the same.

I would agree with you. I don't think that people can believe the opposite of what they understand to be true.

[Jenny A]

@fr0d0

Don't give me too much credit. I do appreciate the intellectual candor of calling the choice to believe without certain evidence a leap of faith; but having tried it in my teens for family, I must say I couldn't do it. The problem as I didn't and don't see it as:

The existence of god is unknown.

What I've always seen, and becomes clearer as I get older is:

The existence of god is ultra-extremely improbable.

[fr0d0]

So you weren't convinced and couldn't fool yourself into believing it?

[Jenny A]

So you weren't convinced and couldn't fool yourself into believing it?

Yep. ----Not that I haven't fooled myself into things before.