Fed up of non believers

[Cyclone]

Yes I can.

 

My suggestion about vacuums was just that, a suggestion, and if you look back you will see that I asked purely out of curiosity.

 

It means nothing regarding the proof or otherwise of Gods existence that you can't prove a negative.

 

Just because you can't prove something doesn't mean the opposite has to be the case.

Neither does it mean that the conflicting claim is true. It simply means that nothing can be proven either way.

 

You can't prove that I'm not god. I guess however that you're not going to be agnostic to this proposition, but will in fact believe that I am not god.

I've made this point multiple times and apart from briefly invoking common sense, you've carefully ignored it.

There is no way to prove any number of ridiculous myths, but presumably in most cases you believe them to be myths, rather than simply saying that you cannot decide due to a lack of evidence.

 

---------- Post added 13-03-2014 at 07:37 ----------

 

People are using analogies and comparing to things that are testable and knowable. It is possible to test and know if someone can do 100m in 10s or is wearing a blue jumper.

 

However, going back to the flea in test tube analogy. It is not possible for our flea to know what is beyond the test tube, if anything, nor is it possible to know the nature of the whatever it is that may or may not exist outside the test tube.

 

If we liken 'outside the test tube' to 'god', what does this say about any theological position we may hold?

 

To my mind, there are 3 broad categories.

 

1. Flea is not considering or even aware of the issue.

2. Flee thinks there is something beyond.

3. Flee things there is nothing beyond.

 

To my mind, I think 2 and 3 are essentially the same, that is, they are both baseless guesses.

 

This all of course, assumes god to be comparable to 'outside of the test tube', i.e. referring to something that is entirely unknowable and undefinable (to even call it 'something' is misleading).

 

Having no evidence for something, and indeed something that doesn't appear to fit in the observable universe, it is not a baseless guess to say that thing is not correct.

[ivanava]

People are using analogies and comparing to things that are testable and knowable. It is possible to test and know if someone can do 100m in 10s or is wearing a blue jumper.

 

However, going back to the flea in test tube analogy. It is not possible for our flea to know what is beyond the test tube, if anything, nor is it possible to know the nature of the whatever it is that may or may not exist outside the test tube.

 

If we liken 'outside the test tube' to 'god', what does this say about any theological position we may hold?

 

To my mind, there are 3 broad categories.

 

1. Flea is not considering or even aware of the issue.

2. Flee thinks there is something beyond.

3. Flee things there is nothing beyond.

 

To my mind, I think 2 and 3 are essentially the same, that is, they are both baseless guesses.

 

This all of course, assumes god to be comparable to 'outside of the test tube', i.e. referring to something that is entirely unknowable and undefinable (to even call it 'something' is misleading).

 

The problem here is that most people that believe in God believe that God is knowable, and if it wasn't for these people no one would even be aware of the idea that a God exists. If no one on the planet believed in God, we wouldn't be talking about it because we would be unaware if the concept, no one would be claiming that God is unknowable or doesn't exist.

[mjw47]

You can't prove that I'm not god. I guess however that you're not going to be agnostic to this proposition, but will in fact believe that I am not god.

I've made this point multiple times and apart from briefly invoking common sense, you've carefully ignored it.

There is no way to prove any number of ridiculous myths, but presumably in most cases you believe them to be myths, rather than simply saying that you cannot decide due to a lack of evidence.

 

---------- Post added 13-03-2014 at 07:37 ----------

 

 

Having no evidence for something, and indeed something that doesn't appear to fit in the observable universe, it is not a baseless guess to say that thing is not correct.

 

Well, I can be pretty sure that you are under the impression that you are 'All Knowing' which is one of God's characteristics.

 

As for the other myths to which people keep referring, there is one major point which you either haven't managed to work out, or are deliberately choosing to ignore.

 

They are all accepted myths, the giveaway being the use of the description 'Myth'. To my knowledge no one is actually seriously saying otherwise.

 

The existence of a Creator on the other hand is held to be true by billions of people.

 

Whilst you could argue that many of those people are poor and badly educated, you also have to acknowledge the fact that many are not, and indeed are both highly intelligent and extremely well educated.

 

Many of them to degree level, including quite a number in the sciences.

 

In fact, you basically acknowledge as much in your final sentence.

 

Whilst it may not be baseless, it's is still none the less, just a guess.

[Cyclone]

So because some people actually believe a particular myth you think it should have more weight?

 

Some people honestly believe that ghosts exist, are you agnostic to that?

Other people believe in clairvoyance and magic, are you agnostic to these?

Are you saying that any myth that has enough believers achieves some sort of threshold whereby no longer disbelieve it, but become agnostic regarding it?

 

Deductive logical reasoning is not guessing. It's reaching a conclusion based on the evidence (or lack of) that is available.

[mjw47]

So because some people actually believe a particular myth you think it should have more weight?

 

Some people honestly believe that ghosts exist, are you agnostic to that?

Other people believe in clairvoyance and magic, are you agnostic to these?

Are you saying that any myth that has enough believers achieves some sort of threshold whereby no longer disbelieve it, but become agnostic regarding it?

 

Deductive logical reasoning is not guessing. It's reaching a conclusion based on the evidence (or lack of) that is available.

 

In which case, why did you use the expression 'guess' in your previous post?

 

I believe that I've explained before, but no matter, I'll try again.

 

Just because someone takes a certain view on one particular matter, in this case the existence, or none existence, of God(s), this does not then require them to have to take the same view on other matters which third parties attempt, however teniously, to draw parallels with.

 

For instance to answer your above questions, whilst I have known three separate people - each of whom I knew well enough to trust - who have claimed to have seen ghosts, and been adamant about the fact, I personally feel that there must have been some logical reason behind their experiences.

 

Clairvoyants I believe to be charlatans, who are out to make money from vulnerable people and are to be held in contempt as a result.

 

Magic comes under the same category as myths. Magicians are entertainers out to amaze us with the manner in which they can fool our observational skills.

I'm not aware of any magicians ( other than tribal witch doctors ) claiming otherwise.

 

So you see, different conclusions to different questions. Not being forced into thinking 'I must think this because I thought that about another subject' is known as thinking for yourself.

[alchresearch]

The "I don't know" answer is actually answering no to the original question

 

Not really, it might mean you're open minded and will make a decision when more information is available.

[Cyclone]

In which case, why did you use the expression 'guess' in your previous post?

With reference to me guessing what your opinion would be.

 

I believe that I've explained before, but no matter, I'll try again.

 

Just because someone takes a certain view on one particular matter, in this case the existence, or none existence, of God(s), this does not then require them to have to take the same view on other matters which third parties attempt, however teniously, to draw parallels with.

Yes, we established that you refuse to apply the same thought process to other scenarios for fear of coming up with a silly opinion and having to challenge your agnosticism.

 

For instance to answer your above questions, whilst I have known three separate people - each of whom I knew well enough to trust - who have claimed to have seen ghosts, and been adamant about the fact, I personally feel that there must have been some logical reason behind their experiences.

So despite the parallels, neither god nor ghosts can be disproven, you somehow reach different opinions on the two concepts.

 

Clairvoyants I believe to be charlatans, who are out to make money from vulnerable people and are to be held in contempt as a result.

Yet it is impossible to prove that they can't see the future.

 

Magic comes under the same category as myths.

So do gods.

Magicians are entertainers out to amaze us with the manner in which they can fool our observational skills.

I'm not aware of any magicians ( other than tribal witch doctors ) claiming otherwise.

 

So you see, different conclusions to different questions. Not being forced into thinking 'I must think this because I thought that about another subject' is known as thinking for yourself.

No, this is known as avoiding thinking in a consistent way because it would force you to re-evaluate a conclusion you seem to believe strongly in.

People will go to great lengths (unconsciously) to avoid cognitive dissonance.

[mjw47]

With reference to me guessing what your opinion would be.

Yes, we established that you refuse to apply the same thought process to other scenarios for fear of coming up with a silly opinion and having to challenge your agnosticism.

So despite the parallels, neither god nor ghosts can be disproven, you somehow reach different opinions on the two concepts.

Yet it is impossible to prove that they can't see the future.

So do gods.

No, this is known as avoiding thinking in a consistent way because it would force you to re-evaluate a conclusion you seem to believe strongly in.

People will go to great lengths (unconsciously) to avoid cognitive dissonance.

 

No, it was nothing to do with you guessing about my opinion. It was used in the context of you justifying your claim, nothing to do with my view, seeing as my view is 'don't know either way.'

 

Are you telling us that you rigorously apply the same level of logical deduction to every proposal,story or opinion you come across, no matter whether anyone is even claiming it to be true or not?

 

Boy you must be a joy down the pub. And how your parents and primary school teachers managed to avoid being charged with assault and battery of a minor we'll never know.

 

What is this conclusion which I supposedly believe so strongly in?

 

As I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of a deity, and simply accept that no one - whatever they may claim - actually has any proof, the wisest choice is not to commit to either unproven theory and simply reserve judgment until such time as someone settles the question.

 

However unlikely that may be.

[SnailyBoy]

No, it was nothing to do with you guessing about my opinion. It was used in the context of you justifying your claim, nothing to do with my view, seeing as my view is 'don't know either way.'

 

Are you telling us that you rigorously apply the same level of logical deduction to every proposal,story or opinion you come across, no matter whether anyone is even claiming it to be true or not?

 

Boy you must be a joy down the pub. And how your parents and primary school teachers managed to avoid being charged with assault and battery of a minor we'll never know.

 

What is this conclusion which I supposedly believe so strongly in?

 

As I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of a deity, and simply accept that no one - whatever they may claim - actually has any proof, the wisest choice is not to commit to either unproven theory and simply reserve judgment until such time as someone settles the question.

 

However unlikely that may be.

 

Do you think the evidence supports the justification of the theists position to believe in god(s)?

[Cyclone]

No, it was quite clearly a guess about your view

 

I guess however that you're not going to be agnostic to this proposition

 

That's the only context I used guess within, apart from to state that a conclusion based upon deductive reason was NOT a guess.

 

re you telling us that you rigorously apply the same level of logical deduction to every proposal,story or opinion you come across, no matter whether anyone is even claiming it to be true or not?

If I am challenged to do so in order to validate another opinion, yes. Why would I refuse. If I have a way of forming opinions then it needs to be applicable to all postulates, not just the ones I'm happy to apply it to.

 

You're asking me to explain what you believe in? You've been stating it continuously throughout the thread!

 

You wish to have proof of a negative and fail to understand that they cannot be proven. The rest of your opinion follows from this logical mistake. Yet you won't apply the same thought process to other ideas because you realise that you will result in an opinion that you can't actually justify and don't really hold.

 

the wisest choice is not to commit to either unproven theory

So why do you not apply this logic to ghosts, imaginary friends, spaghetti monsters, and whatever other crack-pot idea someone claims is true?

 

It is highly unlikely that it will be satisfied to your standards since you require the proof of a negative, something which can't be achieved.

 

---------- Post added 13-03-2014 at 15:29 ----------

 

There are three options though:

1) I believe you can run 100m in 10s

2) I believe you can't run 100m in 10s

3) I'm not sure either way

 

Admittedly 10s is a bit extreme and few would ever choose anything but option 2. However, if you had said 12s, that would be a different matter entirely and all three options would become likely answers.

 

3 is a variation on 1 IMO. If you don't believe my statement, then you disbelieve my statement. I'm not sure is just leaving you room to accept new evidence without having to back down (if for example I demonstrated it).

 

I can't by the way.

 

---------- Post added 13-03-2014 at 15:33 ----------

 

.

 

It means nothing regarding the proof or otherwise of Gods existence that you can't prove a negative.

It means everything regarding this particular topic.

 

You've set an impossible standard for "proof" by repeatedly saying that until it's proven not to exist you will refuse to have a decisive opinion.

Just because you can't prove something doesn't mean the opposite has to be the case.

True, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

But in that situation the logical course is to believe it is not the case.

Neither does it mean that the conflicting claim is true. It simply means that nothing can be proven either way.

 

So now you are back to being agnostic about ghosts, you can't prove they don't exist, ergo they might. They can't be proven to exist, they can't be proven not to. And yet you don't believe in them.