Ask an agnostic...

[ThePhysicist]

Yeah, but who cares about "potential existance"? The logical possibility that does exist doesn't mean that it shouldn't be dismissed as rubbish.

Sure it's perfectly acceptable, I don't have the time to worry about all these stupid religion things. There's a bajillion out there, it's pragmatic to dismiss it as hooey and move on!

Look, that's fine. You can, to some extent or another, provide acceptible counter-explanations just by relying on what we know now to legitimize a disbelief in, for example, christianity. This cannot, however, be applied to a more general sense of god or the supernatural. You may in fact be able to disprove the God of Christianity using the method I spoke of (by by-stepping the universal negative problem with occums razor) just by using our current knowledge. But you can't find a logical basis for denying the existence of all gods. Not yet anyway. So again, an atheist is no better than a theist when it comes down to it.

 

[Perfection]

That's a ridiculous rebuttle. I'm starting to think your joking with me.

Cool, I must be winning!

Look, that's fine. You can, to some extent or another, provide acceptible counter-explanations just by relying on what we know now to legitimize a disbelief in, for example, christianity. This cannot, however, be applied to a more general sense of god or the supernatural. You may in fact be able to disprove the God of Christianity using the method I spoke of (by by-stepping the universal negative problem with occums razor) just by using our current knowledge. But you can't find a logical basis for denying the existence of all gods. Not yet anyway. So again, an atheist is no better than a theist when it comes down to it.

Why not? I find no utility in either the terns "God" or the "supernatural" , why shouldn't I dismiss it as rubbish?

 

[ThePhysicist]

Wow, you totally just didn't get my argument, did you. You keep saying the same thing over and over. Let's examine what you are saying.

What makes something rubbish, from a logical standpoint? The fact that it is more complicated than necesary, requires too many postulates or axioms. Or, I suppose, if it is demonstably wrong. But you cannot use either of those criteria to disprove god. God is not demonstably nonexistent, that much is certain. And also, since you can provide no alternative to God that works on fewer axioms or is less complicated (or let alone one at all), you cannot use occums razor to dismiss theism. You are stuck. You must simply choose to accept neither atheism nor theism, because neither has evidence or a method of acceptible verification.

And your rebuttle was ridiculus. You basically said, I don't have time to learn all that so it must be wrong. That's silly.

 

[nihilistic]

Let me re-state this. You seem to accept that God could potentially exist. But you go on to say that potentiality does not mean you must accept it. From a logical standpoint, this is incorrect. It does dictate that you accept it as something other than "rubbish," as the only acceptable way around this situation would be occams razor. As I've noted, occums razor does not seem to apply. Therefore, there is no logically acceptable and defensible way of dismissing God's existence.

Let me give you an example. Take santa clause. Atheists use the santa claus arguement alot. Of course, you can never disprove santa claus. You can, however, provide a completely consistent alternative (for instance, that it's really just a fable and the actions of caring parents) that is much simpler. Therefore, by occums razor you can justify a disbelief in santa claus not as faith but as logical. The atheist would then say it is likewise with god.But you cannot do this with God. We cannot provide a consistent alternative to God (yet*), so occums razor does not apply and any disbelief in God is from a logical standpoint equal to belief.

*And as I say, for all we know it could be impossible.

First of all, there are always alternatives, and one of the most likely alternatives is a perfectly mechanical universe.

Second, you don't seem to understand the argument at all. It isn't about alternatives, but rather theory versus practice. Many people, myself included, are in theory agnostics but in practice atheists. This stems from that theories deal with possibilities (we think the existance of deities may be possible), but practice deals with probability (we evaluate the probability of existence of the supernatural to 0).

The difference is between possibility and probability.

 

[Perfection]

What makes something rubbish, from a logical standpoint? The fact that it is more complicated than necesary, requires too many postulates or axioms. Or, I suppose, if it is demonstably wrong. But you cannot use either of those criteria to disprove god. God is not demonstably nonexistent, that much is certain. And also, since you can provide no alternative to God that works on fewer axioms or is less complicated (or let alone one at all), you cannot use occums razor to dismiss theism.

Sure I can, the null explination provides just a good an explination as god does for anything.

 

[ThePhysicist]

Sure I can, the null explination provides just a good an explination as god does for anything.

Exactly! It's just as good! Thus atheism and theism are on the same logical basis. That's my whole point....?

They are both terrible explanations though. The theisms are basically made up, and physicalism is incomplete at best...maybe impossible. So I reject them both, for the time being.

 

[ThePhysicist]

First of all, there are always alternatives, and one of the most likely alternatives is a perfectly mechanical universe.

Second, you don't seem to understand the argument at all. It isn't about alternatives, but rather theory versus practice. Many people, myself included, are in theory agnostics but in practice atheists. This stems from that theories deal with possibilities (we think the existance of deities may be possible), but practice deals with probability (we evaluate the probability of existence of the supernatural to 0).

The difference is between possibility and probability.

Yes, an alternative would be a mechanical universe. But we can't provide the complete theory for that, so it's not on the same level. You can't say "mechanicalism would be simpler, so it is so!" That is just bringing our argument about god backwards into an argument about mechanicalism. Prove that an entirely natural and scientific description of the world is possible, and you have disproven god, sure. But until you do, merely conjecture that such an explanation exists is no better than a conjecture that god exists. So again, atheism is left with nothing over theism.

Oh, and by the way, on the probability thing. How did you derive a probability for the existence of God? I would like to see that if it's not too difficult.

 

[Perfection]

Exactly! It's just as good! Thus atheism and theism are on the same logical basis. That's my whole point....?

Nope, null explination is simpler!

 

[ThePhysicist]

Nope, null explination is simpler!

No, it isn't. You can't provide a null explanation that is simpler, because that would mean you have an all encompassing scientific theory of everything. I know you do not have this (if you do, please publish, or atleast let me in on it )

If we one day succede in creating such a theory, god would be disproven. Or if you can prove that this can be done, then god would be disproven. Perhaps I am wrong, but we are incapable of both.

 

[Perfection]

But we can't provide the complete theory for that, so it's not on the same level.

Why do we need to? We find that mechanical thoeries provide cool stuff like cars n' internets, and we get crap from religious thoeries. We should go with what works and reject which doesn't!

 

[Perfection]

No, it isn't. You can't provide a null explanation that is simpler, because that would mean you have an all encompassing scientific theory of everything. I know you do not have this (if you do, please publish, or atleast let me in on it )

You're not understanding what I mean by "null explination". "Null explination" is the lack of explination. God explains the universe just as well as the absence of any explination. So I just dismiss God as crap and don't try to explain!

 

[ThePhysicist]

We don't know that it works forever, though. There may be a limit. And that's when I started talking probabilities. Probably, you are right. Science has always worked so far. It has not failed. So by probability we could say it shouldn't. But we don't know that. So it's not a logical proof. It's more of a suspicion.

 

[warpus]

What makes something rubbish, from a logical standpoint? The fact that it is more complicated than necesary, requires too many postulates or axioms. Or, I suppose, if it is demonstably wrong. But you cannot use either of those criteria to disprove god. God is not demonstably nonexistent, that much is certain. And also, since you can provide no alternative to God that works on fewer axioms or is less complicated (or let alone one at all), you cannot use occums razor to dismiss theism. You are stuck. You must simply choose to accept neither atheism nor theism, because neither has evidence or a method of acceptible verification.

Why would you require an alternative to God?

 

[ThePhysicist]

God explains the universe just as well as the absence of any explination.

No it doesn't. God, even specific gods, explain the universe. They just do such a terrible job that they require axiom after axiom. Like I said, you can't disprove a universal negative. You can always just add complexity or axioms or whatever to make it fit obervaton. Like epicycles on the ptolemaic solar system. The resulting explanation is admittidly terrible, but it does work better than absolute ignorance.

 

[ThePhysicist]

Why would you require an alternative to God?

So I can use occums razor to disprove his existence in an acceptible manner. Otherwise my disbelief is not founded on anything.

 

[Perfection]

We don't know that it works forever, though. There may be a limit. And that's when I started talking probabilities. Probably, you are right. Science has always worked so far. It has not failed. So by probability we could say it shouldn't. But we don't know that. So it's not a logical proof. It's more of a suspicion.

Yes, that's the flaw of inductive reasoning, but that doesn't mean you have to "be agnostic" about God. I have inductive reasoning, and goddamnit I'm gonna use it to assess the truth of things!

 

[Perfection]

So I can use occums razor to disprove his existence in an acceptible manner. Otherwise my disbelief is not founded on anything.

There is an alternative to God, nothing!

 

[warpus]

So I can use occums razor to disprove his existence in an acceptible manner. Otherwise my disbelief is not founded on anything.

Would you approach a belief in an invisible donut the same way?

 

[Adamb0mb]

Actually, I'd argue In all frameworks. Things without qualities are meaningless.

A discussion of the qualities of god in and of itself may in fact be meaningless. While the discussion will not yield any insights into the qualities of god it may bring up other ideas such as morality which are meaningful.

 

[Perfection]

A discussion of the qualities of god in and of itself may in fact be meaningless. While the discussion will not yield any insights into the qualities of god it may bring up other ideas such as morality which are meaningful.

Wouldn't it just make more sense just to talk about morality?