You do realise that that post is an example of using reason to reach a similar conclusion to me? — S

Yes, reason is qualified to outline the boundaries of our ignorance. As example, I can use reason to discover that I'm not going to become the next Einstein.

We're doing the same thing in the sense we are using the same methodology. The difference between us is that so far you've only challenged one chosen authority, whereas I am challenging them both.

Once we challenge both authorities, and see that neither can pass the test, the God debate collapses of it's own weight.

Some people will be happy about this, and others will not.

Some people (on both sides) have built a very elaborate and cherished self image out of their position within the God debate, and thus they will resist any threat to the God debate.

Other people will find that while they've become bored by the endlessly predictable and unproductive children's merry-go-round to nowhere patterns of the God debate, they are still incurably interested in investigating further.

To it's credit, the God debate has revealed useful information, we are ignorant in regards to such enormous questions. Thousands of years of God debate and nothing resolved equals ignorance.

So an honest investigator with a sincere interest will take what the God debate investigation has revealed, and follow that trail. We don't have to stop just because we didn't find the answer we were hoping to find.

Are you familiar with Hume? I agree with his point about the laws of nature, for example. It is possible that tomorrow when I wake up - if I wake up - and turn on the tap - if it is still there - that the water - if any is produced - will unexpectedly float upwards. Yes, what we tend to think or believe is conditional on a million other things. So what? Does that make any real difference? No. Should I abandon reason? No.

You are nowhere near my level. You are still foolish enough to jump to conclusions about age or the length of time that one has been doing philosophy, and you still think that you're making a profound point about reason, when others have long since accepted similar criticisms and sensibly moved forward, leaving you and your superiority complex in the dust.

If reason doesn't help in matters like this, then why not believe anything that you want? Why is it that you use reason as I do, and you've even reached very similar conclusions to me? You are in denial, young Jake. Perhaps you'll grow out of that one day.

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)? — Echarmion

Hence why I put "physical" in quotation marks, by the way.

The grounding is that the facts can't be wrong about the facts. But a reporter can be, including that reporters can be dishonest/they can weave fictions (so that it would turn out that they're not actually reporters at all), they are biased in many different ways, etc.

You're heavily undermining your own point. How can you say that nothing has been resolved, when by applying reason, we can discover that we're too ignorant to reasonably conclude either theism or strong atheism? And if you want to abandon reason here, then go for it if you even can. Go ahead and see if you can believe in space teapots and God and no God and a flying magical giraffe called Terrance. That's a prominent philosophical problem largely resolved. Plenty of others are still stuck at an earlier stage or have reached the wrong conclusion.

How can you say that nothing has been resolved, when by applying reason, we can discover that we're too ignorant to reasonably conclude either theism or strong atheism? — S

You're repeating the point I just made. Yes, the investigation has revealed that we are ignorant. Thus, the entire basis upon which you accept one position within the God debate and reject another has been destroyed. You are left with nothing. A state of affairs which matches the vast overwhelming majority of reality.

Should I abandon reason? No. — S

Nobody said you should abandon reason. I'm asking you to do reason, to be fully faithful to your own chosen methodology. You've challenged holy books. Good! Now just keep going and challenge all other proposed authorities too, including the one you've chosen.

You're confusing reason and ideology.

Reason will challenge all proposed authorities in an even handed manner with no dog in the fight.

Ideology attempts to use logic calculations to promote and defend a fixed position. When evidence arises that is inconvenient to that fixed position, such evidence is discarded.

What are you talking about? I'm not merely repeating your point, I'm pointing out that, contrary to your own words, "nothing resolved", it shows that the philosophical problem has been largely resolved, if not completely. That's what resolving philosophical problems consists in: applying reason, logical analysis, making an assessment, reaching a conclusion, rejecting possible alternatives as unwarranted...

Your accusations of me confusing reason and ideology ring hollow. I put it down to your psych. For some reason, your psych is compelling you to fabricate this mischaracterisation, even though it isn't supported by a shred of reason.

I'm not merely repeating your point, I'm pointing out that, contrary to your own words, "nothing resolved", it shows that the philosophical problem has been largely resolved, if not completely. — S

Yes, like I keep saying, the problem is resolved, the investigation come to a useful insight. Nobody knows what they're talking about. Your atheism and the whole glorious ego structure you've built upon it is deflated, dead, all gone, bye bye now. Some people can handle that, some can't. We shall see in time which of those people you are.

That's what resolving philosophical problems consists in: applying reason, logical analysis, making an assessment, reaching a conclusion, rejecting possible alternatives as unwarranted... — S

That's what I'm asking you to do. And you keep refusing to do it. Atheism is not reason. Atheism is a faith which competes with theism.

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. — Echarmion

the entire purpose of drug trails is to establish evidence -

You are a good comedian, though inadvertently. You haven't even begun to criticise my kind of atheism, you just sent us on a diversion about reason which hasn't achieved what you appear to so desperately want it to.

Your whole "argument" amounts to little more than fallacy. The fallacy of ad hominem, the fallacy of guilt by association, the fallacy of false equivalence. "You're an ideologue! You're like a 23 year old! You're just as fanatical as them!". If this is the "wisdom" which comes with old age, I do not want it. You can keep it. Thanks, but no thanks.

My kind of atheism is the kind which has rejected theism and strong atheism, not as impossible, but as unwarranted, and unwarranted due to insufficient evidence in support of them. We've been over this in detail before, as you well know, so your denialism is not excused. You don't actually seem to substantially disagree, you just want to grind your axe like your nuclear weapons thing. Ironically, it seems you're an ideologue.

The grounding is that the facts can't be wrong about the facts. But a reporter can be, including that reporters can be dishonest/they can weave fictions (so that it would turn out that they're not actually reporters at all), they are biased in many different ways, etc. — Terrapin Station

OK, but that only tells me that testimony is less convincing as evidence, not that I positively need evidence other than testimony for a conclusion. I'd label this a quantitative difference (though I see that this may sound confused). If you see something with your own eyes there are fewer points of failure, but personal observations don't have any special qualities to them.

the entire purpose of drug trails is to establish evidence - — Rank Amateur

Sure. But if the drug trial fails to uncover any positive evidence, the conclusion will not be that we're agnostic about e.g. the effect of a drug. It will be that the drug is ineffective.

You haven't even begun to criticise my kind of atheism, — S

Your kind of atheism, all kinds of atheism, are just faith. All of it, all flavors of atheism, depend on unproven qualifications of a chosen authority

Your whole "argument" amounts to little more than fallacy. The fallacy of ad hominem, the fallacy of guilt by association, the fallacy of false equivalence — S

I will help you debunk me, as you are clearly not capable of it. My illogic is in the persistent unfounded assumption that discussing this on philosophy forums can accomplish anything at all.

My kind of atheism is the kind which has rejected theism and strong atheism, not as impossible, but as unwarranted, and unwarranted due to insufficient evidence in support of them. — S

Depends on the qualifications of human reason for the task at hand, which remains unproven.

You're just like the theists you are so desperate to be superior to. You want to know. You want an answer, a story, some kind of conclusion, or at least a theory, or at least some method of developing a theory. But you have no such method. So you invent an answer, and then use that fantasy answer to inflate your self image.

At that point the investigation is essentially over, because now all your efforts will be invested in protecting that wonderful self image story.

not that I positively need evidence other than testimony for a conclusion. — Echarmion

Anyone can reach a conclusion based on anything they like, no?

I wouldn't be saying what's necessary for all people to reach a conclusion. That would entirely depend on the person in question.

People certainly can and do reach conclusions based on testimony only.

I think that's a horrible idea. I explained why. Not everyone is going to agree with me, no matter what I do.

Okay, I take back what I said. You have begun to criticise my kind of atheism. You have begun to do so fallaciously. Your claim that my kind of atheism is "just faith" is not only unwarranted, but ludicrous.

Your suggestion that reason is unqualified for the task at hand is self-defeating through performative contradiction. You rely on reason to reach the same conclusion that I do. The possible alternatives, though obviously possible, are unwarranted through reason, and should therefore be rejected if we're going to be reasonable, and you've already said that you don't expect either of us to abandon reason, so you're just attention seeking, it seems.

What's so absurd about your rhetoric, is that behind it all, I have reached the same conclusions that you have, and we've both done this through reason. You are shooting yourself in the foot with your own rhetoric, and in your superior wisdom, you don't even realise this.

Is it that you see the word "atheist" and you become like a wild bull who has seen red? That's what I suspect. A bit like "nuclear weapons". It's just a word. We don't even have to call it that. You don't have to get so triggered at the mere mention of it. Calm down, dear. You're not being reasonable when you get yourself all worked up and start spouting nonsense.

Sure. But if the drug trial fails to uncover any positive evidence, the conclusion will not be that we're agnostic about e.g. the effect of a drug. It will be that the drug is ineffective. — Echarmion

that is a conclusion based on evidence. You a mis-understanding me - I am not saying science will not say something does not exist, but they will only say that when there is evidence that it does not exist

that is a conclusion based on evidence. You a mis-understanding me - I am not saying science will not say something does not exist, but they will only say that when there is evidence that it does not exist — Rank Amateur

Ah, then we agree on that. But who would even suggest that anyone is claiming that something doesn't exist on no evidence?

Ah, then we agree on that. But who would even suggest that anyone is claiming that something doesn't exist on no evidence? — Terrapin Station

All I ever said is all science says about lack or evidence is that there is a lack of evidence.

Many here and elsewhere erroneously believe science says something does not exist if there is no evidence for it - science does not.

Science only says something does not exist, where there IS evidence that it does not exist.

Indeed. Both theists and strong atheists who try to be reasonable think that there is sufficient evidence in support of their respective claims, whilst weak atheists, agnostics, or whatever we call them, disagree with both. And those who don't try to be reasonable should keep quiet about it here, as that's contrary to doing philosophy, and doing philosophy is what we're supposed to be doing here.

Many here and elsewhere erroneously believe science says something does not exist if there is no evidence for it - science does not.

Science only says something does not exist, where there IS evidence that it does not exist. — Rank Amateur

The language here is going to cause a lot of people to not understand this.

It's conventional to think of "evidence (suggesting) that F does not exist" is the same as "there is no evidence for F."

No one would be claiming that "science makes claims about whether F exists when there's no evidence to suggest that either F exists or F does not exist"--which is apparently how you're using "no evidence for F." Most people would make an "Evidence for F"/"Evidence against F" distinction. You seem to be using "Evidence for it (for F)" to cover both.

It's conventional to think of "evidence (suggesting) that F does not exist" is the same as "there is no evidence for F." — Terrapin Station

to a scientist they are not the same thing at all

"Evidence for it (for F)" to cover both. — Terrapin Station

science does. All scientific theory - as the best current explanation of a physical state of affairs, requires evidence.

Saying some X does not exist, as the best current explanation of a physical state of affairs requires evidence as well.

If there is no evidence to the claim it does not exist - science is agnostic on the claim it does not exist.
If there is no evidence to the claim is does exist - science is agnostic on the claim is does exist.

Science, by definition, is agnostic to all claims without evidence. And is doubtful even on the claims with evidence.

To a scientist - all a lack of evidence against any claim is, is there is a lack of evidence.

The important thing in my post was understanding the "evidence for"/"evidence against" distinction. Does that distinction make sense to you? They're both evidence. The difference is whether the evidence is "in favor" of a claim, whether the evidence suggests that a claim is true, or whether the evidence is against a claim, whether the evidence suggests that a claim is false.

I know that there is at least one respondent here who is a theist. The question is, is he willing to admit that his belief is on par with guesswork?

And to any strong atheist, what supposed evidence is there that there is no God, and why is it supposedly sufficient support of your conclusion?

It's conventional to think of "evidence (suggesting) that F does not exist" is the same as "there is no evidence for F. — Terrapin Station

Not sure how conventional it is - but they are very different - seems we are in violent agreement

I know that there is at least one respondent here who is a theist. The question is, is he willing to admit that his belief is on par with guesswork? — S

My theism is based on faith - now you can try to make guesswork = faith if you wish.

I have never claimed God is, is a fact. And I maintain that God is, is still not in conflict with reason.

You might have noticed that I was careful with my wording. I didn't say that faith is guesswork, I said that it is on par with it. Good luck trying to argue otherwise. Your faith in God is on par with faith in Teapot or guesswork that flying invisible giraffe. That which is on par with guesswork is very much in contrast to reason. They're mutually exclusive.

You might have noticed that I was careful with my wording. I didn't say that faith is guesswork, I said that it is on par with it. Good luck trying to argue otherwise. Your faith in God is on par with faith in Teapot. That which is on par with guesswork is very much in contrast to reason. — S

I am not making any claim at all, it seems you are - would you care to make an argument that faith + guesswork I would be happy see what I think.

But more likely you are just trolling for a fight

The topic relates to intellectual honesty, as the creator of the discussion has noted. You're intellectually honest enough to be explicit about your theism being based on faith. Are you intellectually honest enough to be explicit about the logical consequences of this? That your faith in God is on the same epistemological level as faith in Teapot and on the same epistemological level as guesswork that flying indetectable giraffes are all around us?

That your faith in God is on the same epistemological level as faith in Teapot and on the same epistemological level as guesswork that flying indetectable giraffes are all around us? — S

that is your claim not mine, it is up to you to support it.

It is up to you to support any supposed difference in epistemological level. I can't do that for you. Either I'm right or I'm ignorant, but you have done nothing which could possibly change my assessment by simply pointing to my burden of proof. The burden of proof can be avoided, as you well know. You avoid it all the time. I can avoid it by retracting my claim for scepticism, which means I have nothing to defend, but you have a questionable faith which seems no different in epistemological terms to faith in a space teapot.

↪Rank Amateur It is up to you to support any supposed difference in epistemological level. I can't do that for you. Either I'm right or I'm ignorant, but you have done nothing which could possibly change my assessment by simply pointing to my burden of proof. The burden of proof can be avoided, as you well know. You avoid it all the time. I can avoid it by retracting my claim for scepticism, which means I have nothing to defend, but you have a questionable faith which seems no different in epistemological terms to faith in a space teapot. — S

I don't have an epistemological issue - you say i do - support your claim or not - as you wish.

All I need to do is point to the absence of sufficient evidence for both positions and point out that you're not forthcoming with any evidence to distinguish the two positions on an epistemological level. I hereby point that out.