Atheism the Belief

[Cyclone]

Of course they can, but only by believing it to be true, because they cannot backstop it with evidence. It's a non-rational argument, even if it is probably correct.

 

You realise that it's impossible to provide proof for a negative.

 

How can you prove that Santa doesn't exist? Or magic?

 

You can't. The best you can do is point to a lack of any evidence for them, and how they don't fit into what we understand to be the rules of the universe.

 

---------- Post added 21-07-2015 at 07:32 ----------

 

It seems you misunderstand what Snaily is saying.

The act of simply not accepting something is not an argument in itself. It has nothing to prove, no point to make, no evidence to provide and no claim that it needs to back up.

 

It is simply the act of not accepting something. To interpret this as meaning or implying something other than it actually is, is to jump to irrational conclusions.

 

That's not strictly true either.

 

If you present evidence to support a position, and despite it I just declare that it's untrue, then I'm making an argument, and it's not a rational one (assuming I have no counter evidence and it's not a subjective argument).

 

For example, if you tell me that it's raining and I don't accept it (and there is evidence that it is indeed raining) then I'm just an idiot.

 

---------- Post added 21-07-2015 at 07:34 ----------

 

What makes you think that if you could rewind to a given point in time everything would turn out differently. What appears to be totally random could just as easily be the inevitable outcome from the preceding events.

 

No one knows for certain that time travel is or isn't possible, but lets assume that it is.

If someone from the future traveled back in time to tomorrow they would be able to witness everything that happens tomorrow, which means everything that is going to happen tomorrow is already predetermined. As long as the time traveler doesn't interfere the future will be the same, and no matter how many times they go back to that same point in time the future will always be the same unless they alter the starting conditions.

 

Are you attempting to answer my request for evidence, by asking questions?

 

The best models of physics that we have indicate uncertainty and randomness at the smallest levels of the universe, not determinism.

 

---------- Post added 21-07-2015 at 07:38 ----------

 

Absolutely correct.

I use the term 'absence of belief' to avoid the kind of confusion that Waldo succumbed to though.

 

This binary state is exactly why absence of belief is not belief of absence.

 

Imagine I were to ask you if you believed I currently had an injured left hand, you would most likely say you didn't have enough information to base such a belief on. Therefore, you wouldn't hold the belief that I have an injured hand. You literally would not believe that I have an injured hand.

 

This absence of belief does not, however, imply that you believe in the opposite (which would be a 3rd option, not binary), that I do not have an injured hand.

You simply haven't been convinced yet that I do have an injured hand.

You lack that belief.

It is absent.

 

Lacking that belief, it means that I disbelieve what you have said. If I'm not prepared to take your word for it, then disbelieve is the result, it's the same as absence of believe.

[RootsBooster]

That's not strictly true either.

 

If you present evidence to support a position, and despite it I just declare that it's untrue, then I'm making an argument, and it's not a rational one (assuming I have no counter evidence and it's not a subjective argument).

 

For example, if you tell me that it's raining and I don't accept it (and there is evidence that it is indeed raining) then I'm just an idiot.

In that context, when real, empirical evidence is presented, I agree. Or at the very least it's just ignorant (with no argument).

 

In the context of theism (or the injured hand example), this is not the case though. The only 'evidence' given to try and argue the existence of God or gods is personal opinion or beliefs, which amounts to nothing. Not being convinced by this is not an argument in itself.

 

 

Lacking that belief, it means that I disbelieve what you have said. If I'm not prepared to take your word for it, then disbelieve is the result, it's the same as absence of believe.

Correct, I've said nothing contrary to this.

 

This doesn't change the fact that disbelief/absence of belief does not imply that you believe in the opposite (which would be a 3rd option).

 

EDIT

I've now altered post #120 to be more accommodating

Edited July 21, 2015 by RootsBooster

[natie]

Y

 

The best models of physics that we have indicate uncertainty and randomness at the smallest levels of the universe, not determinism.

 

Lacking the ability to predict something doesn't mean the outcome is uncertain or random. For it to be random the outcome would have to be different each time you start form the same point. There is zero evidence to suggest that rewinding the universe to a given point in time would result in a different outcome.

 

Everything that happens is causally determined by preceding events and natural laws.

[RootsBooster]

Lacking the ability to predict something doesn't mean the outcome is uncertain or random. For it to be random the outcome would have to be different each time you start form the same point. There is zero evidence to suggest that rewinding the universe to a given point in time would result in a different outcome.

 

Everything that happens is causally determined by preceding events and natural laws.

There is zero evidence to suggest that we can rewind the universe back to a given point in time.

[unbeliever]

Lacking the ability to predict something doesn't mean the outcome is uncertain or random. For it to be random the outcome would have to be different each time you start form the same point. There is zero evidence to suggest that rewinding the universe to a given point in time would result in a different outcome.

 

Everything that happens is causally determined by preceding events and natural laws.

 

You're quite wrong.

There is overwhelming evidence that if we ran the same universe over again it would come out differently. The current universe is the result of an absolutely vast number of events, the outcome of each of these was not determined in advance.

[Annie Bynnol]

...

Everything that happens is causally determined by preceding events and natural laws.

 

There are no "natural laws" in our observable universe.

Newtons "Laws" are very, very good but they are not "laws" as they do not apply to all situations:

On Earth we know that different outcomes are possible from the same starting point-Chaos Theory.

Universal-Different outcomes always occur depending on the relative positions of the observed and the observation- Relativity.

 

"Everything that happens" is not measurable.

[RootsBooster]

To Rootsbooster and others:

 

I agree with your comments on my post, but I think there's some scope for confusion in the terms used.

 

I refer to the Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (which I assume is the definitive work) which defines agnosticism thusly:

 

That's cool and everything but it has no relevant bearing on why you think an atheist isn't someone who lacks lack belief in gods.

[natie]

There is zero evidence to suggest that we can rewind the universe back to a given point in time.

 

And even less evidence to suggest it would be different if we could, the universe is that ordered that scientists even predict the end of it, assuming that they are right.

[RootsBooster]

And even less evidence to suggest it would be different if we could, the universe is that ordered that scientists even predict the end of it, assuming that they are right.

 

There's less evidence than zero?

[natie]

You're quite wrong.

There is overwhelming evidence that if we ran the same universe over again it would come out differently. The current universe is the result of an absolutely vast number of events, the outcome of each of these was not determined in advance.

 

What evidence would that be? each of those infinite events was caused by a previous event. The sun for example didn't randomly and spontaneously come into existence, it was the inevitable consequence of a series of events that proceeded it.

Edited July 21, 2015 by natie