↪Frank Apisa
Well, in my humble opinion you should reconsider the matter. In the theism-atheism debate we have arguments from both sides. Yes, none of these arguments are perfectly sound and so the problem. But people believe what they believe only based on a logical argument they connect with. For example problem of evil is quite convincing atheistic argument and the ontological argument is a ''sound'' theistic argument.

All I'm saying is people believe based on logic and it's not just guesswork. — TheMadFool

I use "god" because I believe that what I call the experience of god is closely related to a belief in god. There is an experience which many people have that influences them to believe in god. Not to start us off on a new tangent, but that can also be said of love, pain, anger, and celery. Which is not to say that, if you have the experience, you have to believe. — T Clark

The dictionary describes faith in two senses.
Faith
1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"

2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
-a system of religious belief.
"the Christian faith"

-a strongly held belief or theory.
"An Atheists faith"
I copied and pasted this directly from an online version of Merriam Webster's Dictionary.
I said what I said based on this entry. If you care to disprove the dictionary, which is based on logic, go ahead. But you all put faith in your houses that they aren't going to fall over and crush you, because your house has never failed you before. You completely trust your house, therefore you have faith in it. You don't necessarily have faith in the second sense, but you definitely do have it in the first. — OpinionsMatter

↪TogetherTurtle
↪DingoJones
↪Wayfarer
↪Terrapin Station
↪TheMadFool
↪Frank Apisa
↪emancipate
↪S — OpinionsMatter

Faith is often taken to be 'blind' belief, without proof or evidence. But in classical Greek pistis (faith) had significations 1: that which gives confidence/assurance 2: means of persuasion (such as an argument or proof). — emancipate

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. — TheMadFool

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.

↪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

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

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

↪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

↪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

In proposing a "first cause", you are acknowledging something can exist without a cause. It is a self-defeating argument which apparently you cannot acknowledge. — Frank Apisa


I am proposing a timeless, eternal, first cause because that is the only model that fits the facts. — Devans99

We can't have time stretching back endlessly in an infinite regress; thats impossible. — Devans

So how do you get out of the infinite regress? You could have 'time2' and have 'time2' create time. But then 'time2' is in an infinite regress. So at some point, you have to introduce something timeless (which means its beyond cause and effect so does not need causing) to escape from the infinite regress. — Devans

Some countries have a guaranteed minimum income, provided by the government whether or not the person works. The case has been made that it would be a good idea in the US, but it's a hard sale to make. It just rubs people the wrong way to give people money for doing nothing. I must admit I have some of those feelings myself.

On the other hand, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. The case has been made that providing everyone with a guaranteed minimum income would actually be cheaper than the current welfare system. It would certainly be less complicated. If that's true, I would consider supporting the idea. — T Clark

— Frank Apisa


I think there are some areas of philosophy where we do act as though we're on the autistic spectrum and we don't quite know what to do with words, and there is value in that. I'm also a big fan of clarification.

But there are other domains in which there is no merit in acting like there is some unsolvable mystery bound up in a word so that it's practically useless, when all you have to do is look at how it's being used. — frank

To call the some other way" "god" is purely gratuitous — Frank Apisa


I do not agree. Assuming, of course, that Aquinas has successfully argued his point, then there must exist an infinite mind that acts as the final cause of all that exists. In saying "this we call God", he's simply acknowledging what was widely considered to be an attribute of God within his milieu. — Aaron R

The "g" in gods (which would make more sense if you are meaning "nothing further by it"...is almost always in lower case unless it is the first word of a sentence. — Frank Apisa


https://simple.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/god

So 'God' is capitalised when used in the singular and lower case in the plural. — Devans99

Nothing is prior to the first cause. It is beyond time (and cause and effect) so does not need creating. It just IS. That is the only way to avoid an infinite regress of time stretching back endlessly. — Devans

ASIDE: The word "supernatural" sounds unnatural to me. If natural is anything/everything that exists...then EVERYTHING that exists is natural. If there is a GOD...then that GOD is a part of nature. If ghosts exist...they are a part of nature — Frank Apisa


I agree you can regard God as part of the overall universe. It's just when we come to creation, it's helpful to separate God from the universe he created. So nature would be everything he created. So everything apart from the initial creation is natural; the initial creation being supernatural. — Devans

What do you mean when you use "atheism?" — Frank Apisa


My intention was to be on the same page as the OP. If I failed, that can be worked out in conversation. — frank

I also question your assertion, "More educated, affluent people are more likely to be atheists."

One Frank to another...where does that come from? — Frank Apisa


This is the article Psychology Today used to justify the claim. Is it wrong?

↪intrapersona

Look at religion the way a sociologist might. More educated, affluent people are more likely to be atheists. I think the reason for this is related to what Marx said about religion: that it's like opium. At first glance, this sounds bad, as if believers are like junkies, deluded and wasting away in a back alley somewhere. In fact, opium is also medicine. Anesthesia can debilitate, but it can also return function to a person who would be curled up in a ball on the floor otherwise.

The reason educated people are freed from the need for this anesthesia is that they're more like to be insulated from the things in life that cause pain. They have health care. Their children have access to antibiotics. They don't live where drive-by shootings happen regularly. They don't fear that attention from the police will lead to a catastrophe. They believe they can contribute meaningfully to their community.

Uneducated people are more likely to be poor and disenfranchised. I'm not saying rich educated people don't feel pain, I'm just saying they receive it at a lower dose. So if you consider the options for a poor person who becomes overwhelmed by death and disease: which would you choose for them? Real opium? Or religion, which comes with a supportive community?

I think if you look at it this way, you'll see that rational argumentation is going to be fairly impotent in regard to refuting religion. Spend your free time working to help poor families with sickness, community disintegration, and economic instability. That will actually advance atheism. — frank

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

It's just a convention that the g in God is capitalised. I mean nothing further by it. — Devans99

Well the first cause argument is sound I think: Time has a start; was created, by something timeless. That in itself did not need creating (because it's timeless). It's the only way out of the infinite regress at the start of time. — Devans99

The BB is very unnatural. Starts with a very low entropy which is unnatural. The expansion of space looks very unnatural; no ordinary explosion. Plus natural events always come in pluralities; the BB is a singleton. Very unnatural. Supernatural you could say. — Devans99

If you are making some subtle distinction between "a creator" and (what you insist on describing as) God...what is that distinction? — Frank Apisa


Well there is a tendency with traditional religion to assign unbelievable abilities to God (the 3 O's). That is not the sort of thing I am talking about when I talk about a creator. I mean purely something that created the universe. So you might call it God but that does not mean it has the 3 O's. — Devans99

If, however, it was not created...NOT ONE DAMNED THING IS EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS CREATED. — Frank Apisa


- the prime mover argument
- fine tuning for life of the universe

Are both evidence and are both discussed above.

The Big Bang is also evidence of creation.

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

↪Frank Apisa
I think there is quite a difference between giving a probability that a creator exists and saying categorically that God exists. — Devans99

So I am actually agnostic.

But its better to use more precise language (IE probability) when possible.

And yes there is plenty of evidence that the universe was created.

I am not rationalising. No-one can be sure if there is a creator or not. A step removed from that is a probability analysis. This is a more refined view of not knowing. You may disagree with the numbers I used but the general approach is sound and better than guessing. — Devans99

A probability analysis that comes up with a 97% chance for the existence of "Creator"...is zero steps away from being a blind guess that the blind guesser just cannot kick — Frank Apisa


Well at least I'm systematic about it, unlike you - you are just using gut instinct / taking a wild guess. I am calculating. — Devans99

Maybe not, but maybe so. — Rank Amateur

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

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

↪Frank Apisa
I did not say a 97% chance of God. I said a 97% chance of a creator. There is a difference. The chances of that creator also complying with the traditional religious attributes of a deity is then somewhat lower depending upon how much 3O mayonnaise is added to the deity. — Devans99

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

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.

I must reject this because everyone knows for certain that 87.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot. — Frank Apisa


A probability analysis is one step away from being made up on the spot. — Devans99

It is every bit as "probable" that there was (is) no "directing intelligence" involved...as that there was (is). (Fact is, the "probability" of both is beyond human abilities to calculate.) — Frank Apisa"

Here you would be resorting to the Weak or Strong Anthropic Principle? — Devans99

BTW, it is possible to estimate the chance of the existence of a 'creator of the universe':

- Start at 50% / 50% for a unknown boolean proposition
- Allow for evidence of the Prime Mover argument: 50% + 50% * 75% = 87.5%
- Allow for evidence of the Fine tuning of the universe 87.5% + 12.5% * 75% = 96.875%

So 97% chance of God’s existence.