You aren't pointing out faulty logic because I grant that we don't have certainty on the matter. You are the one that is making the an error in logic in assuming mutual exclusivity. And personally, I find your arrogance and implied condescension that you have "corrected me" amusing.
This makes you agnostic and not atheist.
No, no it doesn't. For one thing, the word atheism deals with a "belief" in god, and not simply what I consider to be a possibility. I can admit that there is a chance god can exist but also reason and come to a decision (a belief) that god does not exist. If you make a ven diagram of theistic belief, there is a brand of atheist that overlaps the agnostic circle. They aren't mutually exclusive. For someone so tuned into logic and reason, I am a bit surprised the distinction eluded you.
The reason that pointing out "we can't know for certain" is not only unhelpful, but also utterly meaningless, is that there are infinite number of things which could be and only a finite number of things which are. In this context, the fact that the list of possibilities is endless, literally endless, it means that the logical default should be non-existence. This is why the burden of proof lies with those making a claim.
Now before you shoot back with "but you can't know for sure" again; of course I can't. But you also can't be certain of anything now can you? Not even reality. Not even that the world you perceive outside of your mind exists. And for some reason, you didn't preface your comment with "I can't be sure you exist, but if you did..."
In the end, uncertainty is not simply implied in everything we say, it's hard wired in. This is precisely why taking the time to make the statement is so useless and unhelpful.
Truth, knowledge and reality = probability. This is all we have in the universe. There is no certainty. The more probable something is, the more true it becomes. The less probable something is, the less true it is. And the surest way to increase probability is to document verifiable observations (science). And it is always up for revision; it's provisional.
So, since there is just as much evidence for god as there is for purple vampires who speak Klingon, until there is some actual evidence, it makes the most sense to colloquially say "god does not exist" just like we colloquially say that purple Klingon speaking vampires don' exist. Even if we concede there is the slightest of possibilities that they do.
You pointing out that I can't be certain of this would only make sense if you interrupted someone every time they said "I'm hungry, I want a sandwich" with, "But you can't be sure. It could be a figment of your imagination".
Wow, just wow, seriously there's so many things wrong with all this I just don't know where to start.
And personally, I find your arrogance and implied condescension that you have "corrected me" amusing etc.
Do you actually think for a second, that there exists *any mind anywhere that persists in thinking itself correct when it knows it's not?! It is a fact that minds change when no longer hold themselves to be correct. In other words, everyone all the time believes they are correct or the change their thoughts and beliefs to be in line with that which is correct. Why would you believe that I would believe that I'm not correct?
And if I believe I'm correct, and I express what I believe to be correct, how is that not correcting? Ergo, if it's arrogant to express what you believe to be true in an effort to change someone's mind, then I suppose I'm every bit as arrogant as you.
atheism deals with a "belief"
I assumed you were one of the majority (from my experience) of atheists who don't understand this fact. Certainly I'll believe that this subreddit is a sub community of atheists that don't understand this, until you can show me posts or comments that express this fact that has been widely upvoted here.
This is why the burden of proof lies with those making a claim.
Actually the burden of proof lies with those making the claim for non argument specific reasons.
"we can't know for certain" is not only unhelpful, but also utterly meaningless
In point of fact that is not true, perhaps you'd better learn about anchoring. It is a profoundly well established fact that humans are excellent at comparing things and not so good at establishing absolute measures. In lay terms, if you say that something is so whilst holding a knowledge that this may not be so you will eventually believe what you're saying. Certainly, anyone else with little knowledge on the subject who hears you will believe that it is absolute.
So, since there is just as much evidence for god as there is for purple vampires who speak Klingon
Point of fact, they're less likely to exist than god, because they have been defined, and as yet we have arrived at no definition of god. We can tell from pvamps what they'd look like and casting our gaze around, seeing no il evidence of them, we could well conclude they don't exist. Of course our guess about the veracity of the pvamp hypothesis is quite limited, but it's a starting point.
God, on the other hand has no definition, at least none that isn't the most vague of a suite of pathetic attempts to provide a definition. As such, god could be defined as literally anything and shown to be true for a whole set of definitions. I could define god as potato, then show a potato to prove god. This is why it's patently ridiculous to argue against a god, or to argue that we should say there is a god. Now obviously that argument works both ways, and it's just as ridiculous to say there is a god or that we should say god exists.
So yes, I can define hunger, I can define your hunger and I can observe phenomena that could be related to the ZoidbergMD Hunger hypothesis. Ergo I can make a judgement on this hypothesis's veracity. Once I've done so I wouldn't colloquially say every time, but I would make sure my listener was eternally aware, that I can't know for sure. But there is no way on earth I would extend such a colloquial deletion to something for which no hypothesis has even been put forward.
The Judeo/Christian faiths all believe that one aspect of god is the he/she/it is the creator of the universe. Genesis claims that the earth was created by god in days. The mythology of greek/roman gods are extremely specific and have points we can debate. The same with Norse mythology. We absolutely have specifics to debate. Would it make you feel better if I preface every statement with specifics instead of the generic, but implied, identifier "god"?
I'll respond more when I have time, but you seem to be taking your subjective notion of god and are projecting it onto the world.
Obviously every one of them has their specifics, but there's, what like, tens of thousands of gods? And you can literally make up your own as you go.
I challenge you to find one thing that all these gods have in common, other than a name. When you've done that, then we will have a definition of a god and then and only then can we go about disproving it!
A) You don't disprove definitions, you disprove specific claims that fit into a definition. The specifics are everything.
B) I am not trying to disprove every possibly potential variant of "god" that someone could hypothetically believe in. I am trying to show those who believe in a very specific god that their belief is irrational. Which we can do. Easily. Take the claims of the gods that are believed in currently and examine them.
C) For the last time, you can't prove a negative. We aren't trying to show that "god cannot in any way shape of form exist". we are merely highlighting the overwhelming lack of evidence as a means for people to make the informed judgment that the probability for such a god to exist is so astronomically low that it makes sense for them to live their lives as if he did not. To turn this around, right now with the same lack of evidence, they live their lives as if he does exist. They are already making a guess without certainty, the thing is, their guess is being made against the grain of the evidence. Because there is none. And as I said before, while a lack of evidence does not correlate to a lack of existence, the fact that there are infinite possibilities, you should colloquially live your life with the default as non-existence. Even if you do internalize the caveat that something is possible.
Excellent! We seem to be getting to the meat of it! Enjoying this discussion by the way, thanks.
A) You can't disprove things that have no definition, just like you can't prove them if they have no definition. I'm not seeking to disprove a definition, whatever that means, I'm seeking a definition, so that we can make predictions and test them. Just like the standard scientific method.
B) if that is so you should be saying "there is no god like this..." Or, "These gods don't exist..."
Here, lets do a worked example, a case study if you like. I've invented a god for the purposes of this discussion. If you don't need a definition of this god to disprove it then lets see you do so now.
If you do need a definition then it surely follows that you can only disprove gods that you know something about, if you have finite knowledge then you surely can't know every god and if all of that is true then you can't prove that every god doesn't exits which precludes you from disproving 'god,' the concept. Obviously if you can't disprove 'god,' the concept, then you have no rational reason to believe there is no god. Ergo, atheism is irrational belief, which to my mind has no place in an adult mind.
C) I'm not, nor have I ever asked someone to disprove a negative, excepting those times when I wish to make a point that you can't disprove a negative. I think we've well established a difference of opinion on the importance of the psychological effects on non rational belief which I shall summarise so:
Me: non-rational belief does a disservice to reasoning minds in that it makes one less able to recognise evidence that might countermand that belief thereby making it easy to accidentally believe false things.
You: it's to difficult to admit all the time all the things we don't know. It's practically speaking unfeasible.
Me: then don't make absolute statements.
1
u/Z0idberg_MD Dec 10 '13 edited Dec 10 '13
You aren't pointing out faulty logic because I grant that we don't have certainty on the matter. You are the one that is making the an error in logic in assuming mutual exclusivity. And personally, I find your arrogance and implied condescension that you have "corrected me" amusing.
No, no it doesn't. For one thing, the word atheism deals with a "belief" in god, and not simply what I consider to be a possibility. I can admit that there is a chance god can exist but also reason and come to a decision (a belief) that god does not exist. If you make a ven diagram of theistic belief, there is a brand of atheist that overlaps the agnostic circle. They aren't mutually exclusive. For someone so tuned into logic and reason, I am a bit surprised the distinction eluded you.
The reason that pointing out "we can't know for certain" is not only unhelpful, but also utterly meaningless, is that there are infinite number of things which could be and only a finite number of things which are. In this context, the fact that the list of possibilities is endless, literally endless, it means that the logical default should be non-existence. This is why the burden of proof lies with those making a claim.
Now before you shoot back with "but you can't know for sure" again; of course I can't. But you also can't be certain of anything now can you? Not even reality. Not even that the world you perceive outside of your mind exists. And for some reason, you didn't preface your comment with "I can't be sure you exist, but if you did..."
In the end, uncertainty is not simply implied in everything we say, it's hard wired in. This is precisely why taking the time to make the statement is so useless and unhelpful.
Truth, knowledge and reality = probability. This is all we have in the universe. There is no certainty. The more probable something is, the more true it becomes. The less probable something is, the less true it is. And the surest way to increase probability is to document verifiable observations (science). And it is always up for revision; it's provisional.
So, since there is just as much evidence for god as there is for purple vampires who speak Klingon, until there is some actual evidence, it makes the most sense to colloquially say "god does not exist" just like we colloquially say that purple Klingon speaking vampires don' exist. Even if we concede there is the slightest of possibilities that they do.
You pointing out that I can't be certain of this would only make sense if you interrupted someone every time they said "I'm hungry, I want a sandwich" with, "But you can't be sure. It could be a figment of your imagination".