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

Not only that, only 100 years ago before Hubble 99% of the universe didn't exist. Hundreds of billions of galaxies, they didn't exist, poof, gone!

Absence of evidence is evidence of an absence of evidence.

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. — Bitter Crank

I think it's more like an attempt to explain color to a blind man. There are thousands of ways one might attempt to do that, which may create the appearance of a great deal of conflict and contradiction even though all the varied explanations are attempting to point to the same thing.

Imho, the divisive nature of thought causes us to assume that a god would be a "thing", something unique and separate from everything else that thus requires a definition, a boundary line between "god" and "non-god". And then of course we begin to argue over the competing definitions.

A better model for god may be the example of space which is everywhere in everything from the smallest to largest scales, but not a separate "thing". Space transcends simplistic dualistic paradigms like "exists vs. doesn't exist" and I suspect the phenomena we label god does as well.

The nature of thought, the way it works, is likely causing to ask a bad question from which we will never derive a good answer.

"Science saying something" is scientists saying something. And scientists definitely say that completely implausible, incoherent, etc. things don't exist when there's no evidence for them. They don't remain agnostic on everything. — Terrapin Station

I'll take one example of this.

Without evidence science does not use words like implausible, incoherent. Without evidence science is completely agnostic.

Science says nothing without evidence, that's what makes it science.

Imho, the divisive nature of thought causes us to assume that a god would be a "thing", something unique and separate from everything else that thus requires a definition, a boundary line between "god" and "non-god". And then of course we begin to argue over the competing definitions.

A better model for god may be the example of space which is everywhere in everything from the smallest to largest scales, but not a separate "thing". Space transcends simplistic dualistic paradigms like "exists vs. doesn't exist" and I suspect the phenomena we label god does as well.

The nature of thought, the way it works, is likely causing to ask a bad question from which we will never derive a good answer. — Jake

I strongly agree with you here. Wait, no I don't. Yikes, I can't tell whether I agree with you or not. You use words that sound like something I might say, but I can't help but wonder if you mean something different than I do.

Yes, they're all guesses but the value of these guesses come in degrees depending on what your worldview/philosophy is. For instance if you're an empiricist then you will agree that there is very little or even no evidence that godly beings exist. On the other hand if you're of spiritual bent then you'll lean towards believing in the divine.

In short, even if any and all claims about gods are guesses these guesses lead to strong conclusions depending on how you view reality is.

The moment that you present a reasonable basis for your experience being of God is the moment that I'll accept your claim that you had an experience of God, rather than an experience which you merely take to have been of God. And God, properly speaking, is not a thing of this world, from what I know of the world, because that name is supposed to have an actual referent, not a fictional or imaginary referent. And there is no actual referent, to the best of my knowledge. As with countless other problems in philosophy, this problem stems from someone not speaking properly, and in this case it is you. Throw out your Tao and replace it with philosophy of the linguistic turn.

Psychology.

But that isn't the purpose of the analogy! I'm not even disputing what you're saying about space teapots and God, I'm disputing the logical relevance. My point has been from the beginning that there's a good analogy to get out of a space teapot and God in terms of the evidence, and in terms of the burden of proof. I don't give a fig about your bad analogy which misses the point. There is no reasonable basis to believe in either, which is very much the point. Saying so of God is like saying so of a space teapot. And that isn't to say that we know as much about teapots as we do about God, it is only to say that the evidence for a space teapot is about as severely lacking as it is for God, and that it is insufficient grounds for concluding in favour. And Russell's point with the teapot was about fallacious attempts to shift the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the theist and the teapotist, not on me.

That's more like it. Time spent rightly criticising strong atheists is time better spent than time wasted attacking me for being perfectly reasonable, or trying and failing to guess my age, or telling me to go away to Facebook.

The moment that you present a reasonable basis for your experience being of God is the moment that I'll accept your claim that you had an experience of God, rather than an experience which you merely take to have been of God. And God, properly speaking, is not a thing of this world, from what I know of the world, because that name is supposed to have an actual referent, not a fictional or imaginary referent. And there is no actual referent, to the best of my knowledge. — S

When hell freezes over is "the moment that [you'll] accept [my] claim." I'll never convince you. You don't have to convince me of the value of science and rationality. As an engineer I use them all the time. I also recognize their limitations, which I don't think you do. As far as I can tell, you don't believe science has any limitations. You define what is real as "what science can explain." So it's a circular argument. It can't be real because it's not what science can explain.

As with countless other problems in philosophy, this problem stems from someone not speaking properly, and in this case it is you. — S

I don't think you mean I'm "not speaking properly." I think you mean I'm wrong. I'll have you know I'm very articulant, articulous .....Me talk good.

Throw out your Tao and replace with philosophy of the linguistic turn. — S

I do not know what this means. Maybe something about a talking bird.

↪Frank Apisa
Yes, they're all guesses but the value of these guesses come in degrees depending on what your worldview/philosophy is. For instance if you're an empiricist then you will agree that there is very little or even no evidence that godly beings exist. On the other hand if you're of spiritual bent then you'll lean towards believing in the divine.

In short, even if any and all claims about gods are guesses these guesses lead to strong conclusions depending on how you view reality is. — TheMadFool

I agree with part of what you said.

A guess that "there is at least one god" or a guess that "there are no gods"...both emanate from predisposition.

But both ARE JUST GUESSES. They are not "conclusions"...they are guesses.

↪Rank Amateur
But that isn't the purpose of the analogy! I'm not even disputing what you're saying about space teapots and God, I'm disputing the logical relevance. My point has been from the beginning that there's a good analogy to get out of a space teapot and God in terms of the evidence, and in terms of the burden of proof. I don't give a fig about your bad analogy which misses the point. There is no reasonable basis to believe in either, which is very much the point. Saying so of God is like saying so of a space teapot. And that isn't to say that we know as much about teapots as we do about God, it is only to say that the evidence for a space teapot is about as severely lacking as it is for God, and that it is insufficient grounds for concluding in favour. And Russell's point with the teapot was about fallacious attempts to shift the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the theist and the teapotist, not on me. — S

Correct...

...UNLESS a counter assertion is made.

If a counter assertion is made...as in, "there are NO gods"...then the burden of proof falls on both parties.

As far as I can tell, you don't believe science has any limitations. — T Clark

I just want to point out that "...you don't 'believe' science has any limitations." ...

...IS NOT THE SAME AS...

..."you believe science has no limitations."

That may become important as the discussion goes on, because "I do not believe there are any gods" IS NOT THE SAME AS..."I believe there are no gods."

And the difference mentioned is significant.

It is a shame when people respond with a type of ad hominem (a circumstantial ad hominem in this case) rather than a response which actually attempts a justification. I had it from Jake in a different discussion in the philosophy of religion section. The challenge is to reasonably support your claim that you've had an experience of God, rather than of anything else which you take to be of God. That isn't about whether or not I'll be convinced by it. Can you do that or not? I didn't even set any more specific restrictions relating to science or anything else. Just go ahead and give it your best shot for whatever you sincerely judge to be reasonable, if you can.

My point about speaking properly wasn't about how articulate you are, it was about wording things in the right logical way, a way which avoids problematic logical consequences. My wording resolves philosophical problems. Your wording exacerbates them.

I agree with you on the significance of that distinction.

↪Frank Apisa
I agree with you on the significance of that distinction. — S

Thanks, S.

Yes, it falls on both, I agree. What I find annoying is when a theist thinks that they can just wade into a discussion like this and start attacking strong atheists when they're just as bad if not worse. The only trick that the theist might exploit here is to withhold any assertion representative of their belief in order to protect it. That is intellectually dishonest. They don't want to face up to intellectual scrutiny, but they're more than happy to jump right in to scrutinising strong atheism, whilst conveniently setting aside the much more defendable types of atheism or agnosticism or whatever you want to call it.

↪Frank Apisa
Yes, it falls on both, I agree. What I find annoying is when a theist thinks that they can just wade into a discussion like this and start attacking strong atheists when they're just as bad if not worse. The only trick that the theist might exploit here is to withhold any assertion representative of their belief. That is intellectually dishonest. They don't want to face up to intellectual scrutiny, but they're more than happy to jump right in to scrutinising strong atheism, whilst conveniently setting aside the much more defendable types of atheism or agnosticism or whatever you want to call it. — S

Agreed!

Hard line theism...and strong atheism share a significant characteristic. Both tend to share their "convictions" as though they are truths incarnate.

Time spent rightly criticising strong atheists is time better spent than time wasted attacking me for being perfectly reasonable — S

You're being perfectly reasonable in the sense of your position being very normal. Normal, not a product of reason.

I strongly agree with you here. Wait, no I don't. Yikes, I can't tell whether I agree with you or not. — T Clark

Well, don't worry about agreeing, just investigate for yourself.

That's not always the case though, which was my point. And it might actually be worse to purposefully refrain from sharing your convinction as a debate tactic. What we'll find is that the theists on here will either refrain from sharing, or, like you say, they won't be clear about it being speculation or guesswork or unreasonable. That "pre-apprehension" stuff from earlier, for example, was sheer speculation, not philosophy proper. And if I indicate that criticism through sarcastically saying, "yeah, and maybe pigs can fly", I have found that some people here will fail to see the significance of that criticism and tell you to go away to Facebook.

Strong atheists are guilty of doing at least some of this also.

And your challenge is to actually lift a finger and attempt to show that, rather than merely say so.

The burden of proof is on the theist and the teapotist, not on me. — S

The burden you carry is to prove that human reason can generate meaningful credible statements about phenomena the scale of gods, should such a thing exist. The theist carries the same burden in regards to their chosen authority, typically a holy book.

As example, it would be perfectly reasonable for you to ask the theist to prove the qualifications of their holy book for answering the very largest of questions (scope of god claims). If they can not provide such proof, then you can in one sweep of the hand dismiss all claims arising from that source. You know, there's no point in spending years debating each and every Bible verse interpretation if the theist can not demonstrate the Bible is a credible authority on the matters it is speaking to.

What you don't yet get, because you are not yet a person of reason but merely an ideologist, is that everything in that last paragraph applies to you and atheism as well, to the very same degree.

A useful conversation on these subjects does not begin until 1) both chosen authorities have been asked for proof of their qualifications (in regards to the largest of questions), and 2) both authorities are shown to fail that test, and 3) at least some members of the conversation accept what this evidence says and proceed to investigate further based on that understanding.

As to your holy book, human reason, let's put that in some context instead of just blindly believing without question that human reason is relevant and useful.

GOD: A theory about the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere.

REASON: The very poorly developed ability of a single half insane semi-suicidal species only recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies, or maybe one of billions of universes etc.

Automatically assuming without questioning that human reason can deliver useful data on questions of such enormous scale is like believing without questioning that a squirrel can understand the Internet. Such an assumption is very normal and very understandable, and very poor philosophy.

I don't think you mean I'm "not speaking properly." I think you mean I'm wrong. I'll have you know I'm very articulant, articulous .....Me talk good. — T Clark

This made me laugh! And even before I've finished the first cup of coffee. :smile:

What color socks am I wearing?

Members have no idea. Members have no way of finding out. Members could debate the question for centuries, but in the end they'd wind up right where they started because there is no way to resolve the debate.

One way out of this cage is to simply declare the debate about my socks as a fun game which serves no higher purpose than fun. It can be reasonable to choose fun as a meaningful purpose for such an investigation.

Another way out would be to just forget about my socks and go do something else, play golf perhaps. This is reasonable too, because why waste a lot of time debating a question which can never be resolved.

And then there's this.

If one is 1) incurably interested in my socks and can't let that topic go, and 2) also sees there is no way to ever determine the color of my socks, the useful question then becomes...

What is our relationship with the unknown, the unknowable?

The musician Stephen Stills once wrote, "If you can't be with the one you love honey, love the one you're with."

That's the situation we find ourselves in. We want to know! But we can't know. And so the rational act is to love the one we're with, our ignorance.

Think of ignorance as some girl you picked up at a bar. :smile: She's not the one you wanted. Not the one you wanted at all. But now she's in your bed. What are you going to do with her?

You seem to have a superiority complex. Of all people, I know a thing or two about that. It is the height of foolishness to expect me to attempt to defend reason. How can I defend reason, except with reason or unreason? Either route is unreasonable. I can only point to the performative contradiction that those who rail against reason nevertheless rely on it a great deal. You won't get far in philosophy through abandoning reason.

"Anyone who denies the law of noncontradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned" - Avicenna.

Testimony is fine as long as it's not just testimony. There needs to be "physical" empirical evidence, including evidence both that the people who originally testified had solid physical empirical evidence backing the testimony and then a chain of evidence that people who bought the testimony had some sort of evidence aside from only testimony to justify buying it. For example, having evidence that so and so won't testify to something unless they had solid physical evidence to support the testimony, even then the person removed from the physical evidence there didn't actually witness the initial physical evidence themselves. — Terrapin Station

What's the epistemological grounding of treating physical evidence as qualitatively different from testimony (ignoring for the moment that testimony is physical, so we'd need additional qualifiers)?

I personally believe plenty of things based on testimony alone, so does everyone else as far as I know.

The only thing any scientist would say about anything that lacks empirical evidence is that is lacks empirical evidence, that is it, that is the only judgment real science would make. Any other judgment you all make about the lack of empirical evidence for anything is not scientific, it either philosophy or theology. — Rank Amateur

That sounds precariously close to a no true Scotsman. Anyways, as a matter of fact we make plenty of determinations based on lack of evidence. Drug trials come to mind.

Not only that, only 100 years ago before Hubble 99% of the universe didn't exist. Hundreds of billions of galaxies, they didn't exist, poof, gone!

Absence of evidence is evidence of an absence of evidence. — Jake

Again, that's ignoring that empirical science relies on induction as well as deduction. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is only true in a deductive context.

You seem to have a superiority complex. — S

That's because I am superior to you in regards to such questions, with no credit due to me nor any blame due to you, as neither of us had anything to do with when we were born. I've been doing this since before you were born. We are not equals, even though forum technology may make it seem so.

It is the height of foolishness to attempt me to defend reason. — S

Now this I agree with. :smile: Seriously, I do this routinely, expect the human realm to be based on reason, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Age does not cure all ills apparently, at least not in my case.

How can I defend reason, except with reason or unreason? — S

You can test whether reason is qualified for the task at hand, the analysis of the very largest of questions (scope of God claims).

We will all agree that human reason can be very useful for very many things, but that does not automatically equal human reason being useful for EVERYTHING. You're assuming without questioning and without proof that human reason is qualified for this investigation. You are a person of faith. Who hasn't yet learned you are a person of faith.

All I'm suggesting is that you apply the very same test you reasonably present to holy books to your own chosen authority, human reason. I'm asking only that you be loyal to your own chosen methodology.

Once such an intellectually honest investigation is conducted, and it's seen that nobody's chosen authority can be proven qualified, a (imho) much more interesting area of investigation opens up.

The overwhelming vast majority of reality at every scale is nothing (or perhaps relative nothing). So without reference to any religion at all, using only observation of reality, we can see that nothing is a very big deal indeed.

You do realise that that post is an example of using reason to reach a similar conclusion to me? Yes, we're ignorant to the extent that we don't know whether what the (noncontradictory) theist believes is true or whether what the strong atheist believes is true. We're basically doing the same thing here, only I'm not in denial about it.

But both ARE JUST GUESSES. They are not "conclusions"...they are guesses. — Frank Apisa

Not really. I do agree that evidence doesn't point either way of the issue. Not enough to say God exists and not enough to say God doesn't exist. Given so, any claim on either of the two positions appears like guesses but it isn't.

We, depending on our worldview, choose one option based on the arguments that most convince us. Theism/atheism is based on some form of logic and so aren't simply guesses.