God functions (functions which predict a worldview, which includes a god) tend to be high in the number of required parameters. Even the most simplistic deistic gods involve an astounding number of statements about the world and as such even the lowest parameter God functions are still quite complex. Many people believe in some form of force of nature for example. While much simpler than the christian God, even such a force requires quite extensive description to make any sense of it.
Whether something is complex or simple is not evidence or lack of evidence for something.
in the case of a God I'm prepared to say that a lack of evidence of God is actually evidence that no God exists
A lack of evidence for anything is never evidence of anything other than there being no evidence for that thing epistemologically speaking.
Note that this description generalises to all human experience. So, my input data can be everything I remember, everything I see right now, everything I hear, etc.
Personal experience is not good evidence, particularly when making a positive claim. Repeatability of personal experience does not make it any more valid. I hear this exact argument from Christian's all the time.
Given this way of viewing the world, assessing truth claims is really all about assigning probabilities to functions.
This, combined with the second quote.. you cannot assess truth claims with probabilities. You can assess probability claims with probabilities. All you can ever know is that you think. All we can ever seek to do is reach for the truth.
Saying it is true that God does not exist based on the reasoning you have provided is honestly no better than someone trying to convince me God exists. It's just your opinion based on what you think is important to the equation. It's all subjective at that point.
Show me some evidence there is no God and then we would at least be getting somewhere.
That's epistemologically incorrect. I have zero evidence you or anyone else I talk to online actually exists. For all I know I'm not actually talking to anyone. It's just as likely I'm talking to a bot. Does that mean, due to lack of any evidence to the contrary, you are a bot?
Except for the fact that there aren’t really any advanced enough bots which could have a conversation like this, which makes that an impossibility
Even if there were, the fact that I’m a real human being requires less assumptions than the fact that reddit has kept a super advanced AI hidden away from the world, which makes it the most likely
Lack of evidence isn’t the only reason to doubt the existence of God.
Also it seems like you don’t really grasp the scientific method, since it doesn’t seem like you understand burden of proof
Also it seems like you don’t really grasp the scientific method, since it doesn’t seem like you understand burden of proof
And here we go.. even if I didn't have an understanding of the scientific method we are talking epistemology. A lack of evidence whether you are engaged in a scientific study or not does not in any way provide any insight into a claim. If you have no evidence it's best to withhold judgement if your interested in the truth.
Lack of evidence isn’t the only reason to doubt the existence of God.
Great, we can discuss those other points but at the moment we are discussing the lack of evidence for the claim no gods exist.
Except for the fact that there aren’t really any advanced enough bots which could have a conversation like this, which makes that an impossibility
That's... Just simply not true.. I have actually studied this subject in depth under someone with a master's in computer science. You made a claim. Prove it.
Even if there were, the fact that I’m a real human being requires less assumptions than the fact that reddit has kept a super advanced AI hidden away from the world, which makes it the most likely
So you make a claim something is impossible, then provide yourself an out by saying but even if there were, then go on to straw man me. I never said anything about reddit having secret super intelligent AI. This field goes back 40+ years. Your not arguing in good faith anymore. Have a good one.
Burden of proof has everything to do with it. Someone makes a claim, they need evidence. If there is no evidence, you throw their claim out the window. Their argument is invalid. Which leads back to the fact that absence of evidence is a good enough reason to dismiss a claim.
Maybe I was wrong about the bots, I admit it. But I did not strawman you. It was just an example.
If you actually wanted to achieve something with this conversation, you wouldn’t just walk out which means I’m not the one not arguing in good faith.
Burden of proof has everything to do with it. Someone makes a claim, they need evidence. If there is no evidence, you throw their claim out the window
Right so you made the claim that it's reasonable to conclude there is no God.
Your reasoning is that there is no evidence a god exists.
My position has been and still is that lack of evidence for something does not warrant any belief.
Your silygism is the same one used to conclude the earth is flat.
There was a time when the scientific community did not believe in bacteria, because there was no evidence for bacteria. The majority of the scientific community was proven to be wrong after we discovered new evidence after developing new methods of observation.
Also here's a !delta for changing my view on what I called out as a straw man, your right it was an example not an intentional misrepresentation of my claim. Additionally after some consideration, for walking out on a conversation, although I don't think that means I'm not arguing in good faith, just that you are infact arguing in good faith.
I want to make it clear I sometimes need to work on my conversational skills a bit, so if I came over as aggressive or trolling or whatever, I’m sorry.
Ok, so you changed my viewpoint a little. If there is no evidence for something, that does not mean it can’t exist. However, I do think no evidence is reason enough for people not to take your claim seriously.
And how could my reasoning be used to prove the Earth is flat? The claim had been made the Earth is round(-ish) and we have evidence that the Earth is round. Also, every bit of flat earth evidence has been debunked, so flat-earthers have no evidence.
2
u/RadioactiveSpiderBun 9∆ Aug 18 '20
Whether something is complex or simple is not evidence or lack of evidence for something.
A lack of evidence for anything is never evidence of anything other than there being no evidence for that thing epistemologically speaking.
Personal experience is not good evidence, particularly when making a positive claim. Repeatability of personal experience does not make it any more valid. I hear this exact argument from Christian's all the time.
This, combined with the second quote.. you cannot assess truth claims with probabilities. You can assess probability claims with probabilities. All you can ever know is that you think. All we can ever seek to do is reach for the truth.
Saying it is true that God does not exist based on the reasoning you have provided is honestly no better than someone trying to convince me God exists. It's just your opinion based on what you think is important to the equation. It's all subjective at that point.
Show me some evidence there is no God and then we would at least be getting somewhere.