We can establish whether or not a god, or gods exist empirically through science. Empirically, whatever is not part of the current best explanation doesn't exist. So unicorns, invisible teapots and gods all do not exist, except as purely mental concepts.

This, of course, doesn't tell us anything about whether or not a god or gods exist outside of empirical reality. As a metaphysical question, the existence of god can indeed not be established by either logic or maths, which includes probability theory.

Whether or not reason compels us to believe in a god is a tricky question and depends on your understanding of what reason is.

…are nothing more than blind guesses.

Any thoughts on this from the group? — Frank Apisa

Our assertions about the gods are more than blind guesses. They are culturally engineered facts. In other words, we know that gods exist because we invented them. Bringing gods into existence is a highly significant and distinguished human activity, performed at a time when there were no other means of accounting for the damnable facts of existence: "How and why the hell did we get here?"

Inventing the gods also provided us with a dramatis personae for narratives informing us about why bad things happen to good, or famous, or noble, deserving or undeserving people? Or even more problematic, why do good things happen to disgustingly bad people?

Most people in the world (what, maybe 80%?) believe in some system of divinity. Obviously, belief in the divine (however conceived) is useful and compelling. Religion is compelling because the stories (narratives) are pretty good fiction, and a lot of behavior codes are comfortable vested in religious doctrine--like, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Believers daily reinvest in the gods, but are careful not think of it as "creating gods". Religion works best when the instrumentality of human invention is kept off the stage.

Do the gods really exist or are they mere invention? It just doesn't matter, as long as they are treated as real. The dollars or pounds or euros in your pocket are based on flimsy fictions, but it doesn't matter as long as we believe in them. If we stop believing in them, then we are in deep shit rather quickly.

We can establish whether or not a god, or gods exist empirically through science. Empirically, whatever is not part of the current best explanation doesn't exist. So unicorns, invisible teapots and gods all do not exist, except as purely mental concepts. — Echarmion

I'm thinking we cannot establish whether unicorns exist or not...using logic, reason, science, or math. Big universe. An equine with a single horn sticking out of a forehead is not that unreasonable.

This, of course, doesn't tell us anything about whether or not a god or gods exist outside of empirical reality. As a metaphysical question, the existence of god can indeed not be established by either logic or maths, which includes probability theory.

Agreed.

Whether or not reason compels us to believe in a god is a tricky question and depends on your understanding of what reason is.

It also depends on one's understanding of what "belief" is.

In the area of religion...as in "I believe God exists" or "I believe no gods exist"...

...the words "I believe" seems to be used in place of "It is my blind guess."

Nothing wrong with guessing.

Lots of good points there...but whether a blind guess is made as a result of culturally engineering or not...it is still a blind guess.

I'm thinking we cannot establish whether unicorns exist or not...using logic, reason, science, or math. Big universe. An equine with a single horn sticking out of a forehead is not that unreasonable. — Frank Apisa

Fair enough, I should have specified "on earth, currently". But the point is that the scientific method does provide a "closed system". It always has a clear answer on whether or not something exists. It's either part of our predictions or it isn't.

It also depends on one's understanding of what "belief" is.

In the area of religion...as in "I believe God exists" or "I believe no gods exist"...

...the words "I believe" seems to be used in place of "It is my blind guess."

Nothing wrong with guessing. — Frank Apisa

What I was getting at is that there is an argument that belief in God is reasonable, even if it's just a blind guess. @Bitter Crank hinted at that argument: Perhaps God is a necessary concept in human civilization.

, performed at a time when there were no other means of accounting for the damnable facts of existence: "How and why the hell did we get here?" — Bitter Crank

As far as I know we are still not at the bottom of that, did I miss something?

Most people in the world (what, maybe 80%?) believe in some system of divinity. Obviously, belief in the divine (however conceived) is useful and compelling. Religion is compelling because the stories (narratives) are pretty good fiction, and a lot of behavior codes are comfortable vested in religious doctrine--like, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." — Bitter Crank

Or maybe as Karl Rahner would say, all human beings have a latent ("unthematic") awareness of God. In his theology, this search for existential meaning is a part of the human condition, because we "pre apprehend" there is something else. We don't know what it is, but as human beings we know it is there on the horizon. Rahner uses the word mystery for God, we have no basis to know what God is, but we seem to have a sense it is there. In other words, there is a search for meaning and an acceptance of such a thing as God, by so many, is because it is real. Maybe not, but maybe so.

Fair enough, I should have specified "on earth, currently". But the point is that the scientific method does provide a "closed system". It always has a clear answer on whether or not something exists. It's either part of our predictions or it isn't. — Echarmion

Okay...but we have to allow for an inability to do something via the "scientific method" at the current time. Right now...it is not possible for us to determine how existence came to be...or if in fact, it always has been. Our limited abilities in this regard to not require that we have a default of "then it cannot be" because we cannot determine that it does.


.

What I was getting at is that there is an argument that belief in God is reasonable, even if it's just a blind guess. Bitter Crank hinted at that argument: Perhaps God is a necessary concept in human civilization. — Echarmion

Make no mistake about it...I have absolutely no problem with anyone guessing that gods exist...or that "God" exists.

I also have absolutely no problem with anyone guessing that no gods exist.

I do have a small problem with people using the words "believe" or "belief" to describe their blind guess, though.

Maybe not, but maybe so. — Rank Amateur

Yup...maybe not...maybe so.

We can establish whether or not a god, or gods exist empirically through science. Empirically, whatever is not part of the current best explanation doesn't exist. So unicorns, invisible teapots and gods all do not exist, except as purely mental concepts. — Echarmion

There is a very very big logic fault in equating the no seeum arguments for teapots and unicorns to god. Here is the flaw, all no seeum arguments say the same thing, we looked around, in all the places where we know how to look, and we haven't seen ( fill in the blank), and we would know it if we saw it. So it does not exist.

We know a lot about tea pots, and horses, and flying, and horns on foreheads. We have the ability to look in most all the likely places teapots and unicorns might be. We have no basis at all to know anything at all about what such a thing as God is, nor any reason to think we could even understand how to apply such a thing to a specific time space model we could even investigate.

These are poor analogies.

It always has a clear answer on whether or not something exists. It's either part of our predictions or it isn't. — Echarmion

The entire wonderful history of science is finding stuff it didn't believe existed- until it did. Every generation believes its science has the answers, and looks with bemusement at what science believed just a few generations earlier. Pretty sure some future generations will be bemused at us. Science is just science. Science just does science, and it is wonderful, but be careful not to make a religion out of it.

I am left to conclude that any AND ALL assertions that “at least one god exists”; “no gods exist”; “it is more likely that at least one god exists than that no gods exist; or “it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god exists”…

…are nothing more than blind guesses.

Any thoughts on this from the group? — Frank Apisa

I've concluded that questions about divine existence are mistakes. That is, to ask is already to be mistaken about the thing asked about.

They do indeed exist - in belief as ideas personified, and there presupposed. And presupposed for the efficacy of the idea. God, then - the idea of such a being - is useful. A convenient fiction about reality and existence and how to be in reality and existence. It's that simple, and that difficult, and as you point out, no other answers are possible. Notwithstanding that St. Anselm's fools, legion in number, will keep on asking.

Okay...but we have to allow for an inability to do something via the "scientific method" at the current time. Right now...it is not possible for us to determine how existence came to be...or if in fact, it always has been. Our limited abilities in this regard to not require that we have a default of "then it cannot be" because we cannot determine that it does. — Frank Apisa

There are theories for abiogenesis. There are also theories for the formation of the universe. None of the commonly considered ones include a god or gods.

There is a very very big logic fault in equating the no seeum arguments for teapots and unicorns to god. Here is the flaw, all no seeum arguments say the same thing, we looked around, in all the places where we know how to look, and we haven't seen ( fill in the blank), and we would know it if we saw it. So it does not exist.

We know a lot about tea pots, and horses, and flying, and horns on foreheads. We have the ability to look in most all the likely places teapots and unicorns might be. We have no basis at all to know anything at all about what such a thing as God is, nor any reason to think we could even understand how to apply such a thing to a specific time space model we could even investigate. — Rank Amateur

What you call a "no seeum" argument is induction based on absence of evidence, which is permissible. It does not depend on us "looking in most all the likely places". We don't assume a god exists for the same reason we don't assume an arbitrary amount of hitherto unknown forces and particles exist - because they don't feature in our predictions. So we assumed the Higgs Boson existed, even before we could detect it, because it was part of a prediction. But the invisible teapot isn't, and so we don't assume it exists.

The entire wonderful history of science is finding stuff it didn't believe existed- until it did. Every generation believes its science has the answers, and looks with bemusement at what science believed just a few generations earlier. Pretty sure some future generations will be bemused at us. Science is just science. Science just does science, and it is wonderful, but be careful not to make a religion out of it. — Rank Amateur

I don't claim empirical knowledge is monolithic and immutable. I am just saying that for any given state of empirical knowledge, there is an answer to the question "does X exist empirically" according to the currently most favored (even if just barely) theory. The current answer for God is, as far as I can see, "no".

Okay...my position is that I do not know if the REALITY is that at least one god exists...or if the REALITY is that no gods exist.

Are you saying that you do know one way or the other?

If you are not...

...we are in agreement that neither of us knows.

I have no problem with you making a blind guess that no gods exist...just as I have no problem with Devans making a blind guess that at least one (creator) does...nor do I mind that Devans says his blind guess is based on logic or reason or probability analysis...or that you say yours is a function of logic and reason.

I often make guesses myself. It has cost me at times...at the track or at the tables. — Echarmion

I am left to conclude that any AND ALL assertions that “at least one god exists”; “no gods exist”; “it is more likely that at least one god exists than that no gods exist; or “it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god exists”…

…are nothing more than blind guesses. — Frank Apisa

Your conclusion is not correct.

I am not a follower of any specific religion nor believer in any particular god. On the other hand, I recognize that the experience of god is a common human experience. It's something I've felt and I know many others have. Intellectually, I won't say the concept of god is indispensable to an understanding of how the world works, but it seems to me that our prime example of a godless understanding of the nature of reality - science - often misses a lot of the story.

I am not a follower of any specific religion nor believer in any particular god. On the other hand, I recognize that the experience of god is a common human experience. It's something I've felt and I know many others have. Intellectually, I won't say the concept of god is indispensable to an understanding of how the world works, but it seems to me that our prime example of a godless understanding of the nature of reality - science - often misses a lot of the story. — T Clark

Not sure if you read my post above about Karl Rahner, this is very much in line with his view of what he called "pre apprehension ".

What you call a "no seeum" argument is induction based on absence of evidence, which is permissible. It does not depend on us "looking in most all the likely places". We don't assume a god exists for the same reason we don't assume an arbitrary amount of hitherto unknown forces and particles exist - because they don't feature in our predictions. So we assumed the Higgs Boson existed, even before we could detect it, because it was part of a prediction. But the invisible teapot isn't, and so we don't assume it exists. — Echarmion

I didn't make up the term no seeum, that is the name of the argument you are describing. And, you may find this hard to believe, but at something as short as 125 -150 years ago there was nothing in physics that predicted the Higgs boson.

All science says, about anything that there is no empirical evidence for, is that there is no empirical evidence. That is all. It is non-scientists who treat science as religion, who turn that into if science does not know it, it does not exist. And they believe this by faith, despite thousands of years of empirical evidence to the contrary.

I didn't make up the term no seeum, that is the name of the argument you are describing. And, you may find this hard to believe, but at something as short as 125 -150 years ago there was nothing in physics that predicted the Higgs boson. — Rank Amateur

There is no need to be condescending. To the people a 150 years ago, would it have made sense to postulate a Higgs Boson because it might be discovered in the future? I can't see how. So, I conclude that the people 150 years ago would have been correct, given their empirical data, to think that there is no Higgs Boson.

All science says, about anything that there is no empirical evidence for, is that there is no empirical evidence. That is all. — Rank Amateur

If that was all, wouldn't science be rather useless? What about induction?

It is non-scientists who treat science as religion, who turn that into if science does not know it, it does not exist. And they believe this by faith, despite thousands of years of empirical evidence to the contrary. — Rank Amateur

I made a distinction between the purely empirical an wider, metaphysical claims though.

Not sure if you read my post above about Karl Rahner, this is very much in line with his view of what he called "pre apprehension ". — Rank Amateur

Yes, it sounds like what you and Rahner are talking about is the same sort of thing I am. Many philosophies have similar concepts. In some it's central to the way reality is seen. In others, it seems like an afterthought. Is Kant's noumenon the same as Lao Tzu's Tao?

I am reluctant to say that the experience we are talking about is universal, as you indicate Rahner does. I can't speak for everyone, but I know it is common.

I am left to conclude that any AND ALL assertions that “at least one god exists”; “no gods exist”; “it is more likely that at least one god exists than that no gods exist; or “it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god exists”…

…are nothing more than blind guesses. — Frank Apisa


Your conclusion is not correct.

I am not a follower of any specific religion nor believer in any particular god. On the other hand, I recognize that the experience of god is a common human experience. It's something I've felt and I know many others have. Intellectually, I won't say the concept of god is indispensable to an understanding of how the world works, but it seems to me that our prime example of a godless understanding of the nature of reality - science - often misses a lot of the story. — T Clark

If you had begun your comments with, "Your conclusion may not be correct"...I would have given it some respect.

As it is...you are telling me that MANY PEOPLE guess at least one god exists...but that they are not guessing.

I am less inclined toward respect than I am toward amusement at that.

Perhaps you can tighten your argument up a bit?

As it is...you are telling me that MANY PEOPLE guess at least one god exists...but that they are not guessing. — Frank Apisa

That would be true, maybe, if guessing that there is a god and experiencing god were the same thing, which they are not. You and I experience love, water, bratwurst, dogs, other people, and all of the other ten thousand things. Are we guessing they exist? There's a case to be made for that. It's not my impression that's the case you're trying to make.

I can never make any sense of likelihood claims where we don't at least have frequentist data.

Then you're in the same category as me in that regard, whatever we name it. I talk about this in terms besides probability, such as in terms of plausibility or evidence or good reason, and I don't make the claim that god exists or that no god exists.

No, they're not poor analogies at all. Drawing the strong atheist conclusion from the analogy is not the fault of the analogy, it's the fault of whoever is drawing that conclusion. The analogy is a good analogy in terms of credible evidence, and the right conclusion from it is that of weak atheism, that it is unreasonable to believe that God or unicorns or flying space teapots actually exist. As Hume said, "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence". I agree with the point in the opening post about intellectual honesty. If you're going to be unreasonable, then you should be honest about it and you should basically just shut up about it in philosophical discussions, because philosophical discussions are supposed to be about what we reasonably believe, not whatever takes our fancy.

No, it is only correct to say that the illusion of god is a common human experience, or to say that it is a common human experience in the same sense that we might say that we experience unicorns through pictures and stories, which is trivial because it lacks controversy. Your funny feeling is just a funny feeling, not evidence of the existence of god.

No, it is only correct to say that the illusion of god is a common human experience, or to say that it is a common human experience in the same sense that we might say that we experience unicorns through pictures and stories, which is trivial because it lacks controversy. Your funny feeling is just a funny feeling, not evidence of the existence of god. — S

I'm willing to go along with that if you will agree that our experience of everything is just the illusion of the experience of everything. Or the experience of the illusion of everything.

not one word of that addresses the point I made about the analogy, not one word. Just one more pronouncement from the all and powerful S. No argument, no support. Just a sermon according to the gospel of S.

God is not everything, if that's what you're suggesting. Everything is everything. I call things what they are in the clearest way. I gave you two options to turn a seeming falsehood into a truth: which is it? Illusion or trivial? Or are you sticking with a falsehood?

Much of this depends on what it means to know, so it's an epistemological question. As such, it depends on what you count as good evidence. Many people limit their knowledge to science, but there are plenty of ways of knowing apart from what science tells us. In fact, one of the main ways of attaining knowledge is through the testimony of others. And while it's true that testimony is the weakest way of knowing, it can also be very strong depending on the number of people making the claim, the consistency of the claims, whether the claims are taken from a variety of cultures, contexts, and experiences, etc. The way we evaluate the claims is similar to the way we evaluate a good inductive argument.

Besides good evidence or reasons for such a belief, one must also take into account psychological factors or causes for belief. Psychological factors can and do override the best arguments. Furthermore, most people have a difficult time looking at evidence objectively, that is, they tend to be wed to a particular world view.

Of course it does, silly. Sheesh, your denialism is a real problem. You said that the analogy is a poor analogy, and the reasons you gave for this were bad reasons, so I set you straight. The analogy is a good analogy if you look at it in the right way, use it right, draw the right conclusions from it. Russell's teapot was being referenced and the lesson from that is a good one, so it's a good analogy if used right. You don't get to shift the burden of proof to others if you make the assertion that there exists a celestial teapot. Or rather, if you do, then you're not being reasonable.

Sam...there was a time when almost everyone alive on the planet...from every culture, context, and experience...would have "offered testimony" that the Earth was a pancake flat object in the center of the universe and that the sun, moon, and stars circled 'round it. There was a time, ONLY A HUNDRED YEARS AGO...when most scientists would have offered testimony that our galaxy was the entirety of the universe.

If you are suggesting from such universality that ANYONE could KNOW either of those things to be so...you would be wrong.

KNOWING that there are no gods...or KNOWING that there is at least one...

...is a guess, a blind guess at that. Totally blind.

People who make the blind guess "there are no gods" and people who make the blind guess "there is at least one god"...apparently do not like to acknowledge that they are making blind guesses...so they do their best to disguise the fact that they are.

Those who blindly guess there is at least one god mostly disguise their guesses by calling them "beliefs"...and actually ask that others give their blind guesses respect and honor, because they call them "beliefs."

Those who blindly guess there are no gods mostly disguise their guesses by calling them the result of logic, reason, and science.

Those who deal with the issue by saying, "I have no idea of whether there are any gods or not"...are the ones using reason, logic...and if I may, the "scientific method."

Or, at least that is the way I see it.