|
What is God?
|
I've been arguing the default position is not "there is no god" for quite some time now,i think.
Hopefully,now that someone else agrees,others will look at the argument more seriously. But that's not my point here,i'm not challenging Atheism anymore,i just am confused.  (August 9, 2015 at 1:19 pm)pool Wrote:(August 9, 2015 at 5:56 am)pool Wrote: I don't understand what the Theory of relativity is,but that doesn't mean that i don't believe in it,neither does it mean that i believe in it. Either you believe in god or you don't. You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid. Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis. (August 9, 2015 at 1:45 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:(August 9, 2015 at 1:19 pm)pool Wrote: I think my doubts will be cleared and i will live happily ever after if someone could answer what my course of action should be given the situation. Finally...A human that understands me! lol xD (I hope you're not playing me like EP lol) So i have just this one doubt,i understand that i cannot believe in the claim or not believe in the claim until i understand what the claim constitutes. Consider a situation where it is not possible to understand what the claim is.How am i supposed to react to this situation? What is my position?  (August 9, 2015 at 1:53 pm)pool Wrote:(August 9, 2015 at 1:45 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: If you don't know what something is, the first step is figuring that out. If someone tells you that a god exists, if you do not know what the person means by "god," then you are not in a position to say whether it exists or not. So, until you know something about that, you should neither believe that it exists, nor believe that it does not exist. It is only after you know what the person is talking about that you will be in a position to look for evidence. If you do know what someone means by their claim, then the default position is still that you do not know whether it exists or not, until after you get some sort of evidence regarding it. Then you should believe what the evidence supports, and you should believe in proportion to the evidence. Which is to say, you should only have a slight tendency to believe something if you have weak evidence for it, and a strong tendency to believe something if you have strong evidence for it. Right now, I am more certain that I am sitting in front of my computer, than I am that the car I have been using is parked out front. The reason being, I presently see my computer and notice that I am sitting in front of it, but I cannot see the car out front from my present position. It is possible (though unlikely) that someone has stolen the car since I last observed it. So my belief that I am sitting at my computer is stronger than my belief that the car is out front. Pyrrho, is 100% wrong there, if somebody makes a claim you either believe it or you don't. If there is not enough information for the claim to be believed than by default it is disbelieved. Also believing god dosent exist is the default position when asking whether or not a god exists, i.e, Person A says god exists Person B can either believe this claim or not believe this claim until there is sufficient evidence to do so. Person B says they don't know what a god is so they are not convinced that claim is true. Person B has defaulted to the position of not believing the claim.  (August 9, 2015 at 1:53 pm)pool Wrote:(August 9, 2015 at 1:45 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: If you don't know what something is, the first step is figuring that out. If someone tells you that a god exists, if you do not know what the person means by "god," then you are not in a position to say whether it exists or not. So, until you know something about that, you should neither believe that it exists, nor believe that it does not exist. It is only after you know what the person is talking about that you will be in a position to look for evidence. If you do know what someone means by their claim, then the default position is still that you do not know whether it exists or not, until after you get some sort of evidence regarding it. Then you should believe what the evidence supports, and you should believe in proportion to the evidence. Which is to say, you should only have a slight tendency to believe something if you have weak evidence for it, and a strong tendency to believe something if you have strong evidence for it. Right now, I am more certain that I am sitting in front of my computer, than I am that the car I have been using is parked out front. The reason being, I presently see my computer and notice that I am sitting in front of it, but I cannot see the car out front from my present position. It is possible (though unlikely) that someone has stolen the car since I last observed it. So my belief that I am sitting at my computer is stronger than my belief that the car is out front. Well, people can and do many unreasonable things, so people can believe that something is true without understanding it. Also, and this is worth remembering, if every respectable physicist tells you that "E=mc2" is true, you might reasonably believe that the statement is likely true without necessarily knowing what it means, if one has reason to believe that the physicists know what they are talking about. In the general case of not knowing what something means, if one is reasonable, one simply takes no position about it. One neither affirms that it is true, nor does one affirm that it is false. "A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." — David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
So i don't have a label? Like Atheist,Agnostic,etc? Or is there a label for people that takes no position about something?
(August 9, 2015 at 2:18 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:(August 9, 2015 at 1:53 pm)pool Wrote:(August 9, 2015 at 1:45 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: If you don't know what something is, the first step is figuring that out. If someone tells you that a god exists, if you do not know what the person means by "god," then you are not in a position to say whether it exists or not. So, until you know something about that, you should neither believe that it exists, nor believe that it does not exist. It is only after you know what the person is talking about that you will be in a position to look for evidence. If you do know what someone means by their claim, then the default position is still that you do not know whether it exists or not, until after you get some sort of evidence regarding it. Then you should believe what the evidence supports, and you should believe in proportion to the evidence. Which is to say, you should only have a slight tendency to believe something if you have weak evidence for it, and a strong tendency to believe something if you have strong evidence for it. Right now, I am more certain that I am sitting in front of my computer, than I am that the car I have been using is parked out front. The reason being, I presently see my computer and notice that I am sitting in front of it, but I cannot see the car out front from my present position. It is possible (though unlikely) that someone has stolen the car since I last observed it. So my belief that I am sitting at my computer is stronger than my belief that the car is out front. What a good deal of nonsense you are writing. You are confusing not having a belief with having one. Imagine I have a wooden box that is the shape of a cube, with each side 2 feet wide. Suppose the idea is suggested that there might be a cat in the box. Well, the box is big enough for a cat, so a cat could be in there. But you cannot see inside the box, so you do not know that there is a cat in the box. Consider the sentence: "There is a cat in the box." Now, do you believe that that is true? If so, you are believing without evidence. Do you believe it is false? If so, you are believing without evidence. It is equally irrational for you to say that there is a cat in the box, and for you to say that there is not a cat in the box. A reasonable person would say, "I do not know if there is a cat in the box." Idiots are people who affirm either that there is a cat in the box or that there is not a cat in the box, when they have no evidence one way or the other. The same applies to whether there is a god or not. Until one has evidence one way or the other, saying that a god exists and saying that a god does not exist are both equally irrational. When one lacks evidence, one does not know. "A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." — David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
 RE: What is God?
August 9, 2015 at 2:50 pm
(This post was last modified: August 9, 2015 at 2:51 pm by Longhorn.)
(August 9, 2015 at 5:56 am)pool Wrote:(August 8, 2015 at 2:43 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: Pool, we've been through this. Unbelief is not an active stance, it is the default position. You either believe, or you don't. Since you don't comprehend what a god is, you don't believe in him; you are implicitly an atheist. End of story. I get what you're saying. You don't know what a god is, so you don't know whether you believe in it or not. But that means you do not have active belief in god, so you lack that belief. That's implicit atheism. The same an infant is an atheist. Just say what you mean, that you don't know what a god is. (August 9, 2015 at 2:47 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:(August 9, 2015 at 2:18 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: Pyrrho, is 100% wrong there, if somebody makes a claim you either believe it or you don't. If there is not enough information for the claim to be believed than by default it is disbelieved. Also believing god dosent exist is the default position when asking whether or not a god exists, i.e, WRONG! Not believing your claim that there is a cat in the box is not the same as believing there is not a cat in the box. I would not assert I believe there is no cat in the box, only that you haven't proven there is a cat in the box. (August 9, 2015 at 2:53 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:(August 9, 2015 at 2:47 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: What a good deal of nonsense you are writing. You are confusing not having a belief with having one. That is exactly the mistake you are making in the god example when you state: (August 9, 2015 at 2:18 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: ... Also believing god dosent exist is the default position when asking whether or not a god exists... The default position should be to not believe either way. Believing one way or the other without evidence is irrational. And that means that believing god doesn't exist, without evidence, is irrational. The rational default position is to neither affirm nor deny something, until one has evidence one way or another. Denying the existence of god without evidence is as irrational as affirming the existence of god without evidence. Both are making claims without evidence. "A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." — David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
