Hitchen's razor. — S

But since there is no proof I would say there is only a burden to provide a compelling argument.

Then the reasonable conclusion would be agnosticism. — S

Exactly what I think. I doubt that there are many atheists who are without some doubt about their atheism.

What do you see as wrong or inappropriate about simply acknowledging that we do not know if gods exist or not? — Frank Apisa

I have already acknowledged that it is not possible to prove it in intellectual terms. But is there a kind of knowledge that can be gained in a non intellectual way? Of course there is. The intellect will not tell you what an orange tastes like. You can only know directly, by eating the orange. Likewise with carnal knowledge. Intellect won't enlighten you. These kinds of knowledge about the world can only be known directly.

If the intellect is concerned only with abstract knowledge then it is confined to a subset of all possible knowledge.

I play no tricks. I merely asked a question. — Shamshir

No, you presented an argument, and I explained the problem with it.

What I have done is removed the separation. — Shamshir

Which is a nonsensical thing to do.

The concept of sound is sound itself. — Shamshir

No it isn't.

Even if I should separate, as you do - the concept of the object exists mutually with the object — Shamshir

You haven't demonstrated that there's an "object", which in this case would be the actual existence of God.

No, you presented an argument, and I explained the problem with it. — S

I asked a question. You did not answer.

Which is a nonsensical thing to do. — S

Maybe. Maybe not.

No it isn't. — S

Then conceptualize over what you cannot imagine and what doesn't exist, if you may.

You haven't demonstrated that there's an "object", which in this case would be the actual existence of God. — S

The object is the filling. The concept of the object is its outline. I explained that, didn't I?

The object is the filling. The concept of the object is its outline. I explained that, didn't I? — Shamshir

I'm on your side in this debate but you can't argue that something exists just because the concept exists. Pink elephants exist as a concept in my mind, but not in reality for example...

What do you see as wrong or inappropriate about simply acknowledging that we do not know if gods exist or not? — Frank Apisa


I have already acknowledged that it is not possible to prove it in intellectual terms. — EnPassant

Okay...so we are left with "I do not know."

But is there a kind of knowledge that can be gained in a non intellectual way? — EnPassant

Could be...but we are not talking about that kind of stuff.

We are talking about whether gods exist or not.

Of course there is. The intellect will not tell you what an orange tastes like. You can only know directly, by eating the orange. Likewise with carnal knowledge. Intellect won't enlighten you. These kinds of knowledge about the world can only be known directly. — EnPassant

We are not discussing what an orange tastes like...or what it feels like to bang some movie star. We are talking about whether gods exist or not...and the evidence atheists supposedly demand.

If the intellect is concerned only with abstract knowledge then it is confined to a subset of all possible knowledge.

We are discussing whether gods exist or not, EP.

WE DO NOT KNOW IF THEY DO OR IF THERE ARE NONE.

Why is that so difficult for you?

Herein lies the difference.

I say, I can draw a circle and I can draw a circle because a circle exists. If a circle does not exist, I cannot draw it. I cannot think of it and I cannot make any concepts of it, because it does not exist.

What you say is that you can think of pink elephants, you can even draw one - but you do not see any pink elephants. They are nowhere to be found! Hence they are not evident.

I agree, it is not evident. Neither is the sculpture, before it is sculpted.

But since there is no proof I would say there is only a burden to provide a compelling argument. — EnPassant

Which you haven't done. You've just produced a number of wildly controversial bare assertions. No reasonable person would find that compelling.

About one’s deeply held beliefs, what sometimes may happen is that a person (often at a crucial moment of their life) has an internal experience. An experience that seems to cut to the core of their very being, in terms of identity, feelings, perceptions, and more. This feels seismic, and they intuit that it would be unwise to completely ignore it as a reaction to eating pizza late at night, or something. So far, so good.

Problems appear when a person expects anyone else to immediately feel the same fear and trembling awe. (The movie Contact depicts this scenario wonderfully). Perhaps only Art can convey such depth of feeling, such breadth of vision. (Art who? Vandelay? lol). But what about the majority of us who can’t produce a masterpiece that will make the ground tremble? We can only share our undoubtedly limited perspective, like the Ancient Mariner telling his tale. Hopefully as honestly, humbly, and accurately (and logically) as possible. If someone else happens to find it helpful or at least interesting, all the better then.

(And here I present a best case scenario. Those who callously wrap themselves in the holy and pure robes of sanctity and righteousness to intentionally mislead others for power and profit are the dregs of the earth, and are rightly mocked. Self-righteousness is the last refuge of a scumbag.)

I have nothing against religion and religious people (both of my best friends are deeply religious and they know I am an atheist) I think persecuting religion is beyond stupid and calling religious people stupid is 2x beyond stupid too.

That said, religion was born in our cave years to explain natural phenomenons (storms, winds, etc) and since we were pretty ignorant in our caves, we decided it was the Gods.

Fast forward, the Renaissance when advanced science was born and the Enlightenment era - but the story of God persisted.

People will believe what they want to believe. But as an atheist I think you have to show me proof God exists - until then :-)

However, science is NOT the answer to everything. I like this video which illustrates how ignorant scientists and atheists can be too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJDgVlv55Uw

I asked a question. You did not answer. — Shamshir

Of course I didn't. It was a loaded question. I addressed the problem with your question and your reasoning prior to it.

Maybe. Maybe not. — Shamshir

There's no maybe about it. It's as nonsensical as saying that a cat is a seagull, and that you do not separate the two.

Then conceptualize over what you cannot imagine and what doesn't exist, if you may. — Shamshir

You aren't making any sense. The distinction between sound and the concept of sound is clear. Sound is what I actually hear. I don't hear the concept.

The object is the filling. The concept of the object is its outline. I explained that, didn't I? — Shamshir

You made a vague metaphor instead of clearly and directly addressing my criticism.

Logic doesn't have anything to do with empirical evidence, it only has to do with formal implication/inference. That's even the case with so-called informal logic. It's just that there we're dealing with logic in natural language rather than a strictly formal language. — Terrapin Station

Here we are also "dealing with logic in natural language rather than a strictly formal language." I'm not suggesting that we apply de Morgan's Theorem here, only considered, structured thought, which is what people mean - in everyday terms - when they say "logic" or "logical".

Careful, considered, structured thought on this issue says that if you have nothing to analyse, there is no justifiable way to reach a conclusion. Until evidence is found, which of course will never happen, that will remain the case. No meaningful conclusion can be drawn from no-data-at-all.

He denies the validity of empirical and theoretical evidence of a first cause. — Devans99

I deny the very existence of "empirical and theoretical evidence of a first cause."

I also am someone unwilling to pretend I can calculate probability for things I cannot. — Frank Apisa

How wise, and how unusual! Most will say, without thinking, (for example) that the probability of the world our senses show us NOT being Objective Reality is 'vanishingly small' or even non-existent. The truth is that, in matters such as this (and there are more of them than you might think), we don't even have a starting point for calculating an actual statistical probability for this. It's refreshing to see at least one other person aware of this. :smile:

Herein lies the difference.

I say, I can draw a circle and I can draw a circle because a circle exists. If a circle does not exist, I cannot draw it. I cannot think of it and I cannot make any concepts of it, because it does not exist.

What you say is that you can think of pink elephants, you can even draw one - but you do not see any pink elephants. They are nowhere to be found! Hence they are not evident.

I agree, it is not evident. Neither is the sculpture, before it is sculpted. — Shamshir

No one is arguing over the existence of an abstract object, or whatever you want to call things like a circle. Abstract objects can't create the universe or do anything which could be thought of as being godlike. You're still missing the point.

When I tell someone, "I believe in the existence of God" what have I told them that they can know? Nothing. — Daniel Cox

You've told them that you believe in the existence of God. How did you miss that? It's the one and only thing you said.

When someone tells me "I'm an atheist, I don't have any beliefs" - Lawrence Krauss in a debate with William Craig, I know they're lying. I can't know he believes he's an "atheist" I only know he's telling me that. Whether he believes it or not doesn't matter, I know he's lying about the part of believing. Think of all things we believe are true but don't have 100% certainty about.

*Intentionality?*

In _The Intentional Stance,_ Daniel Dennett offers a third-person account of intentionality. He discussed the difficulties in attributing a belief to an individual by interpreting behavior and suggests:

it is quite plausible to suppose that in principle (if not yet in practice) it would be possible to confirm these simple, objective belief attributions _by finding something in the believers head_ -- by finding the beliefs themselves, in effect.... If you do believe [there is milk in the refrigerator] that's a perfectly objective fact about you, and it must come down in the end to your brain's being in some particular physical state. If we know more about the physiological psychology, we could in principle determine the facts about your brain state and determine whether or not you believe there is milk in the fridge even if you were determined to be silent or disingenuous about the topic. - Dennett (1987), p. 14.

Naturalists often wave their hands dramatically at crucial points expecting assent. In fact, Dennett's claim is quasi-fact. It is physically impossible to have detailed knowledge of brain states Dennett's supposition requires (p. 11). Even if we did, how would we identify a belief? - God, Science & Mind: The Irrationality of Naturalism by Dennis F. Polis

I know he's lying about the part of believing. — Daniel Cox

Then there is no hope for you. If I tell you "I believe X", the only challenge you can make is that I'm deliberately lying, to mislead you about what it is that I believe. Assuming I'm not behaving in such a pointless fashion, you must accept my belief, even (or especially) if you don't share it.

Pattern-chaser
980

I also am someone unwilling to pretend I can calculate probability for things I cannot. — Frank Apisa


How wise, and how unusual! Most will say, without thinking, (for example) that the probability of the world our senses show us NOT being Objective Reality is 'vanishingly small' or even non-existent. The truth is that, in matters such as this (and there are more of them than you might think), we don't even have a starting point for calculating an actual statistical probability for this. It's refreshing to see at least one other person aware of this. :smile: — Pattern-chaser

We are 5 x 5 on this, PC.

Hi Frank, we know people can be idolized or godded.

That's coercive.

I'm very sorry you're not getting this, but we can't believe for someone else. You're claiming atheism to me, or I'm using it as an analogy, doesn't inform me of anything real.

Daniel Cox
104
↪Frank Apisa
Hi Frank, we know people can be idolized or godded. — Daniel Cox

Maybe you do...but I do not.

I do not even understand what you meant there.

Hi Frank, the words 'God' and 'god' are different words which mean different things, sorry, I'm not trying to be patronizing. God is Supreme Being and a god or any god can be mythological, a person with exceptional talent, a balcony seat in a theater and a person who sits there.

There is no one to one correspondence (mapping onto reality) of a mythological god being real because the word "myth" prevents it.

You're still missing the point. — S

Precisely. I am missing the point.

While you are still looking for it and you'll never find it, because it is like trying to look at your eyes or reach the horizon. All you will accomplish is tiring yourself out.
Whereas if you were aware, it would come in to place all on its own.

I deny the very existence of "empirical and theoretical evidence of a first cause." — Pattern-chaser

- The Big Bang theory has time running slower and slower as we get closer to the Big Bang (due to intense gravity) till the point of the singularity when it is unknown what happens to time. It is suggestive of a start of time.

- The BGV Theorem which states (in brief) that an expanding (on average) universe cannot have a timeline infinite into the past; it must have a beginning.

- The leading cosmological model is Eternal Inflation. This model posits a first cause for the multiverse too. Alan Guth's 2007 paper, "Eternal inflation and its implications”, states that, with reasonable assumptions: "Although inflation is generically eternal into the future, it is not eternal into the past.”. IE It has a start.

- Why the entropy of the universe is so low? With infinite time, entropy must have been reset periodically (for it to be at such a low level as present). The only obvious mechanism to do this is the Big Crunch, but the increasing expansion rate of the universe suggests that we are not in a cycle of Big Bang / Big Crunch. So the low entropy of the universe appears to suggest time is finite.

We are talking about whether gods exist or not. — Frank Apisa

No. We are talking about the kinds of arguments for/against God's existence. Those kinds of arguments depend on what is considered to be 'rational'. The question for debate is about why atheists and theists cannot agree on which rationale to use.

We are not discussing what an orange tastes like...or what it feels like to bang some movie star. — Frank Apisa

We are talking about what is acceptable as a rationale. What is acceptable is in terms of knowledge. That there is a non rational kind of knowledge is an important point because it shows that things can be known by consciousness alone. People who demand elementary proofs dismiss knowledge that is gained purely by consciousness, yet I have shown that this kind of knowledge exists.

Which you haven't done. You've just produced a number of wildly controversial bare assertions. No reasonable person would find that compelling. — S

Does 'wildly controversial' mean they won't fit into the primitive rationale of materialism? That is too bad. Why are controversial ideas not compelling to a 'reasonable person'?

As I keep saying, a large part of the problem is that materialists often think they have a monopoly on what is rational; scientism. If these people can't accept that rationality extends beyond science there is no talking to them.

That is the answer to the first post in this thread: there is no agreement on what is rational because the materialists insist on an abbreviated definition of rationality and anything outside it is 'nonsense'.

- The Big Bang theory... — Devans99

You haven't addressed the possibility that effects must have causes. Never mind the problem of obtaining eye witness (empirical) evidence of the BB, and so on....

You haven't addressed the possibility that effects must have causes. Never mind the problem of obtaining eye witness (empirical) evidence of the BB, and so on.... — Pattern-chaser

All effects must have causes - the first cause is at a base of a pyramid of causality - all effects do have causes. Only the first cause, being beyond time and thus beyond causality does not have a cause.

We have the CMB radiation that is predicted by the Big Bang theory as eye witness evidence and the redshifts of galaxies.

You're persistently pushing this self-serving exceptionalism, that the existence or non-existence of God cannot be determined by mundane rules of logic and evidence. In fact, all the dishonest methods of theists convinced me to become an atheist. If you can't do any better than being slippery and evasive, you have nothing left to convince people but fear, or the desperately desired conceit of being associated with a Higher Power in a pathetic attempt to achieve superiority to those who refuse to let themselves get suckered into your primitive superstitious cult.

EnPassant
104

We are talking about whether gods exist or not. — Frank Apisa


No. We are talking about the kinds of arguments for/against God's existence. Those kinds of arguments depend on what is considered to be 'rational'. The question for debate is about why atheists and theists cannot agree on which rationale to use.

We are not discussing what an orange tastes like...or what it feels like to bang some movie star. — Frank Apisa


We are talking about what is acceptable as a rationale. What is acceptable is in terms of knowledge. That there is a non rational kind of knowledge is an important point because it shows that things can be known by consciousness alone. People who demand elementary proofs dismiss knowledge that is gained purely by consciousness, yet I have shown that this kind of knowledge exists. — EnPassant

Obviously you are one of those people who will never acknowledge "I do not know"...and would prefer to kid yourself with "alternate reality."

Good luck with that...and with your blind guess.

You're persistently pushing this self-serving exceptionalism, that the existence or non-existence of God cannot be determined by mundane rules of logic — TheSageOfMainStreet

If the intellect could answer this question it would have done so a long time ago.

If you can't do any better than being slippery and evasive, — TheSageOfMainStreet

Evasive about what?

primitive superstitious cult. — TheSageOfMainStreet

What cult are you talking about?