What kind of atheist are you

[brennan]

It is a hippo after all. If it existed it would presumably be significantly more detectable than a sub-atomic particle. Hippos are rather large creatures, if one was on my desk I am sure I would notice, even if it were invisible. However I can detect no trace of it.

To further your argument you have to go to increasingly implausible lengths to explain why I cannot detect a large, dancing, river dwelling mammal that is on my desk. Each time you do this it becomes easier for me to point out that what you are talking about is clearly not a hippo at all (I know what hippos are, I have seen them at the zoo), but only a hypothetical entity that you are not prepared to admit does not exist.

You must agree to standards of proof: that the hippo must have some measurable physical presence such as mass or electric charge, or else you are clearly not talking about something that I can accept is real. At the very least if you insist that I cannot detect it, you must state a reason why you believe it exists :ie; a theory that explains some known phenomenon via the use of a dancing, invisible hippo. Said thery then has to be consistent with any other theories I already know to work, such as Relativity and Quantum Electrodynamics.

 

[Fifty]

I'm not asking you to accept it is real, I'm asking you to accept that there is a possibility (an extremely minute one at that) that there is an invisible hippo-like entity on your desk that I cannot perfectly explain the properties of, and that we cannot currently detect by our level of technology. Just as I'm sure the first postulators of sub-atomic particles did not know every detail of their properties, and they could not observe them using their current technology. It seems to me that you would have to PROVE that no hippo could possibly, under any logical construct, exist. Alternatively (and this is what I am advocating) you could simply say that no evidence of the hippo can be found, and the hippo theory doesn't really explain any otherwise unexplainable phenoma, so I reject the hippo hypothesis without further thought. You, however, have to prove that the hippo cannot possibly exist. That doesn't mean you can just say "there is no evidence of the hippo" because that does not in any way prove that it could not possibly exist, only that you (perhaps) havn't looked hard enough.


PS: I'm talking about a normal invisible non-corpreal desk-dwelling hippo here.. The idea of a dancing invisible non-corpreal desk-dwelling hippo is just silly!!!

 

[brennan]

...you could simply say that no evidence of the hippo can be found, and the hippo theory doesn't really explain any otherwise unexplainable phenoma, so I reject the hippo hypothesis without further thought. You, however, have to prove that the hippo cannot possibly exist.

I do not have to prove anything, you have given no basis for the hypothesis in the first place. You are not even attempting to suggest testability, which might give you a case (briefly).

PS: I'm talking about a normal invisible non-corpreal desk-dwelling hippo here.. The idea of a dancing invisible non-corpreal desk-dwelling hippo is just silly!!!

Sorry, I guess I am too used to discussing high-energy Hippotrons, clearly you would prefer to discuss the ground state and avoid relativistic complications arising from large Kinetic Energies

 

[mdwh]

Whilst I generally agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (and hence I picked the second option), I think there is a problem here that the concept of "God" is often not very well defined, and it may be reasonable to have strong disbelief on that basis.

Consider the invisible hippo. Now yes, I don't have evidence that there are no beings whatsoever under my bed, since it is possible that there could be something I can't detect. However, if we're talking hippos, then that's something a lot more specific. We can study hippos, and so far we have no evidence that sometimes they like to turn invisible.

It seems to me that you would have to PROVE that no hippo could possibly, under any logical construct, exist. Alternatively (and this is what I am advocating) you could simply say that no evidence of the hippo can be found, and the hippo theory doesn't really explain any otherwise unexplainable phenoma, so I reject the hippo hypothesis without further thought. You, however, have to prove that the hippo cannot possibly exist.

No, you're missing a middle ground here.

Whilst believing things with *no* evidence is unreasonable, there are few things I can prove beyond all reasonable doubt. There are some things which I think are reasonable to believe, as long as one has evidence in favour of it.

Yes, people living in the past had no way to detect atoms, but it's rather biased to take something we know exists. If they were to ask if some random invisible thing (not *any* invisible thing, but a particular specific thing)existed, then I would say that the probabilty of picking something which didn't exist (say, invisible unicorns) is overwhelmingly greater than picking someone that did exist (say, atoms).

Yes, we know that atoms exist, but the probability that someone would randomly come up with modern day atomic theory just through chance (ie, with no evidence) is astonishingly true.

Now, ancient philosophers did consider that atoms existed, but they knew nothing of how the behaved. If someone made up how they behaved or what their properties are, I'd say it would be reasonable to strongly disbelieve it, even with no evidence either way.

They basically considered that materials were made up of finite particles, rather than being able to be subdivided infinitely. Which is imo analogous to saying that the universe had a beginning - but right now we don't know what was the cause of the universe.

If "God" is defined as "the thing which started the universe", then there is no evidence against that, but then that's so illdefined as to be useless, and not what people usually mean by "God". All the while we're talking about invisible beings with particular properties - whether it's a hippo, or a sentient being which created everything, it's reasonable to believe it doesn't exist. Not because we have 100% certain evidence, but because there is some evidence (eg, hippos don't seem to turn invisible; consciousness and thoughts seem to require a brain of some kind and it seems inconceivable as to how they could work in nothingness; it seems highly unlikely that people would know that a particular invisible thing existed just through guessing).

As I say, I picked the second option, but I can see the point of view of those who picked the first. You only need some evidence to believe something, not 100% proof.

 

[Fifty]

I think this just boils down to differing definitions that we seem to have.

I take "god doesn't exist" as meaning there is no possible way under any logical circumstance whatsoever for god to exist. You guys seem to be taking the stance that "god doesn't exist" means that there is no evidence of god's existence, and even a god (or hippo) hypothesis that has no evidence is full of logical contradictions and lacking in explanatory power, so it is safe to assert that "god doesn't exist" without ever needing 100% irrefutable proof.

It seems we have essentially identical worldviews, with just a bit of a difference in the semantics of it all.

 

[brennan]

If something does not exist, it is impossible to prove that it does not, given that you can always claim 'oh, you just don't know how to see it yet', the line of reasoning you have been using, so relying on 100% irrefutable proof is not actually possible and we must rely on logical standards for proof. In which case the Hypothesis rather falls foul of the fact that you cannot even give a reason for suggesting why there should be a God, without descending into metaphysics. That is what puts it over the brink of reason for me.

 

[mdwh]

I take "god doesn't exist" as meaning there is no possible way under any logical circumstance whatsoever for god to exist. You guys seem to be taking the stance that "god doesn't exist" means that there is no evidence of god's existence, and even a god (or hippo) hypothesis that has no evidence is full of logical contradictions and lacking in explanatory power, so it is safe to assert that "god doesn't exist" without ever needing 100% irrefutable proof.

There is a middle ground though. As well as:

(a) There is no evidence that x exists (but also none that x doesn't exist).
(b) There is 100% proof that x definitely does not exist.

There is also:

(c) There is no evidence that x exists, but some evidence that x doesn't exist.

In practice we can't prove anything for absolute certainty. But the evidence might be enough to compel one to have a strong belief that x doesn't exist (rather than merely lacking belief it exists).

Eg, if I say "I believe the sun will rise tomorrow", that doesn't mean "there is no possible way under any logical circumstance whatsoever for" the sun not to rise, since clearly there is always a small possibility it may not! That doesn't mean it is irrational for me to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, however.

 

[Fifty]

Eg, if I say "I believe the sun will rise tomorrow", that doesn't mean "there is no possible way under any logical circumstance whatsoever for" the sun not to rise, since clearly there is always a small possibility it may not! That doesn't mean it is irrational for me to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, however.

I would never think it was irrational, but it does involve a measure (and I mean a TINY TINY TINY measure) of faith.

And that is if you say that the sun will DEFINITELY rise tomorrow no matter what.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Now, ancient philosophers did consider that atoms existed, but they knew nothing of how the behaved. If someone made up how they behaved or what their properties are, I'd say it would be reasonable [for the ancients, I think mdwh means] to strongly disbelieve it, even with no evidence either way.

Excellent point. Sometimes what is reasonable to disbelieve may turn out to be true after all. Reason cannot absolutely guarantee accuracy unless you stick to "cogito ergo sum" and tautolgies. But, given the poverty of such an approach, it makes more sense to take a risk - believing or disbelieving when the evidence for or against is strong, yet not absolute.

Nor can one reach safety by saying "probably electrons do exist" or "invisible pink unicorns are highly improbable". Those statements are fallible too. Perhaps one has overlooked some relevant evidence, and it's really not probable after all.

Somewhere you stand. You can do no other (sanely).