Belief systems poll

[Kyriakos]

Which suggests that it doesn't exist.

In the same way that ancient Iberians would tend to think Japan did not exist. And yet it did

 

[El_Machinae]

I guess I'll agree. There's only evidence against many human conceptions of gods.
Like I said upthread, the only time you actually cannot prove it either way is if there is no god.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

In the same way that ancient Iberians would tend to think Japan did not exist. And yet it did

Sure. But the millions and millions and millions and millions and..... and millions and millions and.... millions..millions... and all the other millions and millions and millions of possible countries also actually did not exist. So to be convinced Japan didn't exist was the right call at the time.
I can only repeat it to death: No evidence either way is its own kind of evidence for something to not exist. The odds are not actually 50:50. The odds are not known, nothing is known. All we got is nothing. Hence that there is nothing should be assumed.

 

[Synobun]

Sure. But the millions and millions and millions and millions and..... and millions and millions and.... millions..millions... and all the other millions and millions and millions of possible countries also actually did not exist. So to be convinced Japan didn't exist was the right call at the time.
I can only repeat it to death: No evidence either way is its own kind of evidence for something to not exist. The odds are not actually 50:50. The odds are not known, nothing is known. All we got is nothing. Hence that there is nothing should be assumed.

"Nothing should be assumed" is pretty much the counterpoint to "assume it doesn't exist". Which is it?

 

[cardgame]

Nonexistence is the default state.

I don't assume leprechauns to exist —> I live my life as if they don't exist. For all intents and purposes they are fictional. They do not exist. Are you seeing what I'm getting at?

 

[Borachio]

Yes. But no. But yes.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

 

[cardgame]

True, but I'm not going to consider something defying everything I know just because some looney tossed the idea out there.

 

[Borachio]

I'd dearly like leprechauns to exist.

Imagine how many I could keep in the house?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

"Nothing should be assumed" is pretty much the counterpoint to "assume it doesn't exist". Which is it?

That there is nothing. As I already said.

Yes. But no. But yes.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

Yes yes it is. Absence of evidence literally means absence of reason to consider it real.

 

[Synobun]

Nonexistence is the default state.

I don't assume leprechauns to exist —> I live my life as if they don't exist. For all intents and purposes they are fictional. They do not exist. Are you seeing what I'm getting at?

Why would the presence of a higher being change how you live your life if not only to acquire brownie points to enter its good boy club?

 

[Borachio]

Yesterday I lost my car keys. Does the fact that I couldn't find them prove that they don't exist?

edit: brownies aren't the same as leprechauns. Aren't they some kind of house elf?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

What?

 

[Borachio]

If I can't find my keys, I have absence of evidence of their existence. Does it follow they don't exist?

Or is it more likely that I'm just looking in the wrong places?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

You only have absence of evidence since you lost them. You just used an undue limitation in your scenario in just ignoring the part of the temporal dimension which didn't suit your point for no reason I can see.
That you saw your keys while still having them (and of course felt and used them and bought them and..) is pretty good evidence of their existence, even if you don't see or feel them no more.

 

[Borachio]

That I remember seeing, feeling and using my keys is evidence that I remember something. It's not precisely evidence of anything more.

In the same way, a picture of a leprechaun in a book, I think you'll agree, is just evidence of a picture. Not the leprechaun.

 

[cardgame]

Hilarious analogy borachio.

 

[Borachio]

I like it.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Sure. For all I know you are a drunk goblin undergoing a heavy delirium and fantasizing about a distopion future of an alternative reality where people waste their time with pointless arguments on a virtual forum. And I am just part of your drug-trip.
That gets us to the issue of epistemology. What do we even know? Nothing, if we are honest. We just have sensations and that is it.
But it is possible with certain axioms to bring an order into our sensations which at least appears to work very well. And it is possible to not do so and just make things up.

 

[Borachio]

I agree. But any axioms (actually I'd prefer heuristics) are only provisional, aren't they?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Point being?