Atheism: new religion?

[onewheeldave]

That may be part of the problem, you cannot define something that does not exist. Define God!

 

It is indeed part of the problem- I believe that atheist and believers tend to have very different definitions.

 

Of course, when it comes to a discussion, the onus is on both parties to have in mind a definition of the God they are talking about.

 

I suspect most atheists have in mind some concept of a non-material conscious being who created the world and occasionally dabbles in it.

 

And that would be shared by some believers, particulalry the more fundamentalist type.

 

However, other believers have a far more sublime concept of God, as an entity which is found, within, accessible via the mystical path (prayer, meditation)- which is precisely why such believers are not at all interested in proving/disproving Gods existence.

 

For practical purposes, if a person is interested in proofs/disprrofs of god, they really do need to know what they mean by God.

[barleycorn]

which is why I want you (or any one else) to actually explain what "you can't prove a negative" actually means- because otherwise, every new example of a provable negative I present can be countered with "ah, but that's not actually a negative".

 

if you want me to prove a spaghetti monster doesn't exist, similarly, you're going to have to tell me what you mean by a spaghetti monster i.e. define the thing.

 

Once we know what it is, and, what some of it's characteristics are, then we can get to work on establishing whether or not it exists.

 

It's quite simple, you can't prove something doesn't exist but you can prove it does.

In the examples given (there is no God/FSM) you cannot prove the statement but you can disprove it by finding one.

 

As an example let us take the statement 'There is no God' and analyse it under two different scenarios, one where there is a god and one where there isn't.

 

Where there is a God.

The statement cannot be proved but can be disproved by finding evidence of a God.

 

Where there is no God.

The statement cannot be proved but neither can it be disproved as evidence may exist which has not yet been discovered.

 

In summary you cannot prove a negative but you can disprove it.

 

jb

 

ETA: I would like to see your example of negative which can be proven which is why the onus is upon those making a positive claim to prove it.

[llamatron]

Odd question?!!!?

 

It's fundamental to the scientific and rational process, that if a man claims he will believe in God if presented with evidence or reason that proves God exists, that the man specifies what would actaully count as such evidence.

 

Any problems with it you need to take up with Dawkins, because it's him who said that, if presented with evidence, he would cease to be an atheist i.e. he would change his mind.

 

Which makes him seem like a very reasonable chap indeed (good for his public image), but, in the absense of any criteria as to what would constitute acceptable evidence, it's a totally empty statement.

 

We've alreadt established that, the initally plausible seeming 'big voive from the sky', on closer examination would not constitute evidence for God (it could be a big loudspeaker).

 

I propose that any phenomena that could possibly manifest in the world that seemingly indicates Gods existence, can similarly have a multitude of explanations not involving god (such as advanced alien technology etc).

 

I put it to the atheist community, that there is actually no conceivable evidence that could constitute conclusive evidence of Gods existence to a rationalist.

 

i.e. nothing that could happen, or appear, could convince Dawkins that god exists.

 

If anyone in the atheist community disagrees with that, then it's a straightforward matter to simply state, what could constitute such evidence.

 

You have an odd idea of science! The burden of proof is not on the atheist, it cannot be because the atheist is not claiming anything. How can an atheist ask for proof that made up things don't exist? Its totally nonsensical.

[llamatron]

It is indeed part of the problem- I believe that atheist and believers tend to have very different definitions.

 

Of course, when it comes to a discussion, the onus is on both parties to have in mind a definition of the God they are talking about.

 

I suspect most atheists have in mind some concept of a non-material conscious being who created the world and occasionally dabbles in it.

 

And that would be shared by some believers, particulalry the more fundamentalist type.

 

However, other believers have a far more sublime concept of God, as an entity which is found, within, accessible via the mystical path (prayer, meditation)- which is precisely why such believers are not at all interested in proving/disproving Gods existence.

 

For practical purposes, if a person is interested in proofs/disprrofs of god, they really do need to know what they mean by God.

 

It truly isn't:hihi: How can an atheist have a definition of god.

[onewheeldave]

I'd imagine Dawkins knows this perfectly well, and is giving theists a loaded opportunity. Any answer that comes from theists will be greeted with more questions, at which point they would fall down.

 

You may well be right.

 

Does that not make Dawkins guilty of sophistry

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism#Modern_usage

 

If Dawkins does know full well that, in reality, there are no possible observations/evidence/reasons that would convinve him god exists, i'd suggest, that in the interests of honest and sincere debate, he should make that clear.

 

Otherwise, he's basically engaging in tactics that stall the entire debate.

[Chris_Sleeps]

If Dawkins does know full well that, in reality, there are no possible observations/evidence/reasons that would convinve him god exists, i'd suggest, that in the interests of honest and sincere debate, he should make that clear.

 

Otherwise, he's basically engaging in tactics that stall the entire debate.

Not really. It is a logical argument from his point of view. Dawkins knows that science is on his side, and anyone who puts forward a proof will be shown to be either wrong or inconclusive. It isn't sophistry to ask for empirical evidence of something.

[Cyclone]

which is why I want you (or any one else) to actually explain what "you can't prove a negative" actually means- because otherwise, every new example of a provable negative I present can be countered with "ah, but that's not actually a negative".

 

if you want me to prove a spaghetti monster doesn't exist, similarly, you're going to have to tell me what you mean by a spaghetti monster i.e. define the thing.

 

Once we know what it is, and, what some of it's characteristics are, then we can get to work on establishing whether or not it exists.

 

I already explained that actually you can prove negatives but only when the possible set of answers is finite.

 

You can't disprove the existence of a nebulous being because of the nature of the question. Ignoring numbers (as they're quite complicated when you actually look at them closely), you can prove that a fish is not a dog by any number of means. But that's because of the nature of the assertion.

 

You can't prove however that I don't have a fish. The reason being that you can only ever find a lack of evidence to corroborate my statement, there is no kind of proof which would rule out further evidence still to come to light.

 

 

This forum goes into it in a lot more detail (starting with a formal logic statement that is above my head in as much as I'd have to go and learn the symbolism again).

[onewheeldave]

It truly isn't:hihi: How can an atheist have a definition of god.

 

it depends on the exact circumstances, if an atheist is asking that a believer proves God exists, then someone, somewhere, needs to have a definition of God.

 

and if the atheist, when 'proof' is presented, rejects it, it's got to be on the grounds that it's evidence, not for god, but something else, which would suggest that the atheist has some concept of what God is (or isn't), which indicates that they have some defintion of god in mind.

 

But, in the interests of clarity, why don't you present a specific example of such a scenario, and I can them comment on that scenario?

[onewheeldave]

Not really. It is a logical argument from his point of view. Dawkins knows that science is on his side, and anyone who puts forward a proof will be shown to be either wrong or inconclusive. It isn't sophistry to ask for empirical evidence of something.

 

Ok, but just to summarise and, in the interests of clarity, are you agreeing with me that Dawkins knows full well that there is no imaginable evidence that would convince him God exists?

[Cyclone]

If Dawkins does know full well that, in reality, there are no possible observations/evidence/reasons that would convinve him god exists, i'd suggest, that in the interests of honest and sincere debate, he should make that clear.

 

 

He doesn't know that. He just believes it to be the case based on his logic. As I said earlier, if god manifests then I expect that all rational atheists will change their opinion. That's what following the evidence means after all isn't it, you're always open to more evidence, however unlikely you think it is.