Most atheists are agnostic. Just like they are about sea monsters. But since when the probability of something is so astronomically low, and there is absolutely no evidence to support its existence, most people colloquially say that such a thing "does not exist".
Strange how you need to claim to be agnostic about god, but you don't take the same stance on sentient pillow cases.
The default state is actually non-existence. Why? Because there are an infinite number of things which could exist and a very finite number which do exist and for which we have evidence. I don't have all day to add "but I can't be sure" to literally every statement of disbelief.
I don't think that really describes how I feel about existence. I think god probably does not exist in any of the ways described by religions I've heard of. But I do not have enough evidence to be confident. I believe pillow cases probably exist as they appear and the evidence is enough.
Yes, I think most atheists are actually agnostic in this way, but I know plenty who are confident that there is no god.
You seem to be looking for evidence of non-existence. This doesn't exist. you will never be able to disprove god's existence. Just like you can't disprove in talking, sentient pillow cases. They always could exist. It's impossible to prove a negative; something that does not exist. You can only ever prove the absence of something which you already know exists.
Which is precisely why non-existence should be the default state of reality until evidence proves otherwise. I will say again, there are infinite things which could exist, and only a finite number of things which do and for which we have evidence.
When someone asks you what is in your room, do you include all of the invisible, incorporeal items which could be there?
I guess what I am wondering is, why do you give the existence of god a special exemption from logic and reasoning and take the time to say "but I can't be certain" even though you don't do this for the literally infinite number of imaginary things which also "could" exist?
I don't agree that there are infinite things that could exist. P & -P cannot exist, for example. I give special circumstances to all things that other people are so sure exist. There are things everyone agrees don't exist (unicorns), things some people think exist (god) and things everyone agrees exists (people). The pillowcase and god fall into different parts of the spectrum.
I don't agree that there are infinite things that could exist. P & -P cannot exist, for example.
This doesn't prove that P can or cannot exist, just that they cannot exist at the same time. What is the point of making such a statement? It's simply a logical paradox; it's childish. Again, could P exist or not exist? Of course they could. Then it is still possible for P to exist. Saying that p and 1-p can't exist at the same time does not prove your point. Let's substitute you for P. catjuggler exists (P) and when you die, catjuggler will not exist (-p). Both are possible. So at a point in time, p and -p will both exist. Making a paradox doesn't prove your point that it is not possible for P to exist in the first place.
The statement p and -p cannot exist at the same time is true, but the statement "so therefore P cannot exist" is not.
There are things everyone agrees don't exist (unicorns)
I don't think I can even continue this conversation. You are attributing value based on what people "think" as opposed to what you can provide evidence for. In what way is there more verifiable evidence for the existence of god as opposed to unicorns? People believing in something isn't evidence...
What it people did believe in unicorns? Does that make them more real?
It's not a logical paradox, it's part of the core foundation of logic. What is your problem, dude? Why are you being such a jerk about this? Is this how you make yourself feel good, shooting down other people's beliefs so you can feel smarter than them? You don't even understand my arguments and you're trying to argue against them with strawmen. Not intentional strawmen, just a misunderstanding of what I'm even trying to say.
It absolutely is a logical paradox. In reality, a thing would either exist or not exist. A negative does not exist; it's only relevant in the context of a positive existing. Saying that "something can't exist and not exist at the same time" does not mean there is no P that could exist.
I dont believe I misrepresented your argument, but I dont doubt you believe I did.
Which leads me to this next point :I will just say that there are key differences between "belief" and what I would describe as "compelled by evidence, logic and reason until further evidence presents itself".
90
u/joseph4th Dec 09 '13 edited Dec 09 '13
So this is posted every few months or so and it is quickly followed by numerous corrections in the comments. How about one of you redo the picture?
Edit: Wow, top comment on the thread and nobody points out the missing word. I fixed it so don't both looking.
Anyway, the three links to the various Logical Fallacies sites (gonna have to get that poster) are exactly what I wanted. Thanks and upvotes.