quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard No one is asking anyone to prove a negative... Atheism is the antithesis of theism; it is a POSITIVE position that there is no god(s). The fact that it is a positive position means that it is subject to the burden of proof. Now, if one were to take the position that they do not believe in the existence of god(s) or that they have not been afforded proof of or even persuasive evidence in support of the existence of god(s) then there would be no burden of proof; however, as soon as one takes a positive position then it is incumbent on them to prove that position. Incidently, this is why I would never take a positive position on this subject... no positive position is provable in this debate.

I wish people in this thread would stop treating atheism, and strong atheism in particular, as if it were a logical fallacy. It's not, and many authors have argued this.

Authors like Dawkins have written about the following forms of atheism:

1) Weak atheism: I don't know whether or not a god exists, but I believe that it does not.

2) De facto atheism: I cannot know whether or not a god exists, but I believe that it has extremely low probability and live my life as if no god exists.

3) Strong atheism: I am certain, beyond all doubt, that there is no god. I believe that the event of a god existing is impossible.

Now, in order to describe which of these you belong to, you have to qualify WHAT god you're talking about. I am a de facto atheist when we're talking about ALL supernatural powers, because I can't know for certain whether or not there are magical fairymen living in the sky.

However, I am a strong atheist when it comes to the typical Christian/Muslim view of a single, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity that constructed the universe as a home for humanity, listens to prayers, performs miracles, etc. I know for certain that such a being cannot exist, because its existence leads to various logical contradictions.

___________________
I am nobody. Nobody is perfect. Therefore I am perfect.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Please explain, then, how you "support scientifically" the assertion that there is no god. Remember, you're not talking to a theist here, so I'm not interested in counter-arguments to the theistic arguments. You don't have to convince me that we evolved over billions of years from single-celled organisms - I already know that. You don't have to convince me that the world couldn't have been created in 7 days - I don't believe that it was and it's not important anyhow. You don't have to convince me that the story of Noah's Ark is full of contradictions and physical impossibilities - that's already obvious to me. This should be easy for you if it's as cut-and-dry as you make it out to be. My position is neutral. I don't know or really even care whether or not there is a god. I'm open to pretty much any definition for the sake of argument. Prove to me that not only is there insufficient evidence to support any theist's position, but that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that there cannot be any type of super-sentience, or any type of deterministic will influencing the universe other than our own. As you point out in a later post, it mostly comes down to probabilities. Show me that the probability of the existence of god is zero, or close enough to it that we can close the book on it unless some fabulous new contradictory evidence presents itself.

I have never said that there is no god. I have said that the probability of an all-supreme personal god has been shown time and again to be extremely low. Now I’m not exactly sure what you want me to illustrate or cite which I have not already, and I’m not sure what you’re asking for if you’re already well aware of the abundance of contradictions in holy texts. So I suppose you want the probability argument that addresses even the idea of a supreme being--for a minute forgetting that he listens to prayers, intervenes, cares about your sex life, and the list goes on...

Forgetting all of that, here is the argument for irreducible complexity and how it (a) creates a bigger problem than the one it attempts to solve and (b) how it is logically impossible.

Before we examine the argument, there are two distinct interpretations of probability (i) as some intrinsic measurable property of a statistical model, and (ii) epistemic in character, re: Bayes' theorem. For our purposes we’ll examine it via the (i) first method--which concerns itself with statistical model of random generation, or chance.

Let (p) be probability, let (x) be any divine uncaused deity, let (y) be an incrementally motivated singularity, let (q) be complexity, and let (e) be effect (existence), further let’s assume that existence and nonexistence of any variable is 50/50, so we’re on even footing.

If (x) >= (e) and likewise (y) -> (x) or (y) have been the result of unmotivated chance--incredibly stochastic.
If chance is (e) nonexistence or existence, and if the (p) of (e) is probable logically via deduction --> (x) = inevitable complexity and (y) = inevitable simplicity --> (e) of (x) and (y) != 50/50
--> via logical deduction (y) and its incremental simplicity is far more probable than (x) and its self-sufficient, standalone (q)

Thus, even with chance in mind and a 50/50 footing, logically (y) simplicity is more probably to evolve to complexity than absolute complexity (x) that is its own greatest cause.

And so in logic, you cannot create a bigger question to the dilemma you’re trying to solve--that is, you can’t invoke a complex creator to stop the regress if the complex creator cannot be traced back to its own origin.

So it's clear that the physicist and their hypothesis about the big bang--starting simple --> complex--is much more probable than complexity out of nowhere.

There is your improbability argument. hah, this is of course forgetting all the other awesome stuff like omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, that are logically contradictory as well. Or answering prayers, receiving sacrifice, etc..etc..etc..

Reminds me of something Hume said on the virgin birth:

"Which is more likely: That the whole natural order is suspended or that a Jewish minx should tell a lie?"

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut So you've substituted one form of ambiguity ("better") with another ("happiness"). The question remains: in concrete terms, what are you measuring, and where is your evidence?

Well, you could give everyone a survey, for example. We both understand that it's hard to measure these things. For the purpose of thought experiments, its useful to imagine being able to query everyone for "how happy are you right now?" and obtain a response from them on some kind of normalized scale. The point is not to actually do this; the point is to define a metric by which we may logically analyze the consequences of changes in human behaviour.

quote:

I'm not disputing this. Models are useful for making predictions, but they are not evidence. A complex enough model could perhaps be used to make the prediction "if religion disappeared today, humanity would be better off in the capacities of [x], [y] and [z] when measured using the techniques [a], [b], and [c].". Of course, I have yet to hear of any testable model making such a claim. Do you have one that I don't know about?

Well, we can't just grab a bunch of people and conduct an experiment here. Too bad. There are, however, various studies and metastudies which link, for example, a decrease in participation in organized religion with an increases in intelligence, happiness, and success in life. Of course, these are not good enough to prove the hypothesis you stated, but they provide some evidence.

quote:

I stated in plain language that argument by analogy is empty rhetoric that doesn't hold up under logical scrutiny. You've chosen to interpret that as a blanket dismissal of all sorts of theoretical models period - that is your straw man, not mine.

My argument was a theoretical model--or a thought experiment, if you wish. These are used in physics all the time, and cogently provide justification for many types of natural phenomena by reducing them to problems that we already understand. Consequently, by telling me that I was arguing by analogy, either you misunderstood my argument, or you're full of crap.

quote:

The statement "I know [x]" is equivalent to the statement "[x] is true."

I think here you meant to claim that "I know [x]" implies "[x] is true"; obviously there is no double implication going on.

However, I still think many philosophers out there would disagree with you. Epistemology is a wide open subject with many competing theories, and not everyone agrees that [x] must be true for one to be able to claim "I know [x]". Particularly, those subscribing to pragmatism, weak verificationism, and so on will disagree with you. That said, I'm sure you already knew this, and are just trying to push your personal beliefs as absolute truths.

___________________
I am nobody. Nobody is perfect. Therefore I am perfect.

And with that I think I've literally answered all objections in this thread. And honestly, its distracted me a lot from actually getting work done.

So I retire from this thread, but by all means, DigiNut or anybody else who is not satisfied don't hesitate to PM me for my msn/contact info, and I'll gladly discuss it with you. I deal with it on my daily basis in class so might as well.

p.s well done Elyot!

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie Forgetting all of that, here is the argument for irreducible complexity and how it (a) creates a bigger problem than the one it attempts to solve and (b) how it is logically impossible.

I never endorsed the argument for irreducible complexity. No need to explain or refute it - it's an absolute crock of shit and so is the whole Creation Science/Intelligent Design "theory".

You're basically doing exactly what I asked you not to do - refuting the pseudo-scientific claims of some religious nuts. I don't believe in irreducible complexity or any of the other nonsense from that camp. I just don't see enough evidence to conclude that it would be impossible for life to have been either created or influenced by a superior being.

If you're going to make a positive claim - specifically, that there was no deterministic element in the initial formation of life here on earth and that there were no unseen forces influencing the later development of life here, then you have to prove it. Simply telling me that it's improbable is not that much better than the similarly hackneyed Creationist argument. I will grant you that it's marginally more palatable because its claims are less grandiose, but a positive claim still requires positive proof.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie And with that I think I've literally answered all objections in this thread. And honestly, its distracted me a lot from actually getting work done. So I retire from this thread, but by all means, DigiNut or anybody else who is not satisfied don't hesitate to PM me for my msn/contact info, and I'll gladly discuss it with you. I deal with it on my daily basis in class so might as well. p.s well done Elyot!

Well done yourself!

And yeah... all the time that I've wasted on this thread... *sigh*. But a worthwhile experience nonetheless.

___________________
I am nobody. Nobody is perfect. Therefore I am perfect.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot I wish people in this thread would stop treating atheism, and strong atheism in particular, as if it were a logical fallacy. It's not, and many authors have argued this. Authors like Dawkins have written about the following forms of atheism: 1) Weak atheism: I don't know whether or not a god exists, but I believe that it does not. 2) De facto atheism: I cannot know whether or not a god exists, but I believe that it has extremely low probability and live my life as if no god exists. 3) Strong atheism: I am certain, beyond all doubt, that there is no god. I believe that the event of a god existing is impossible.

Hah, I didn't know he wrote this. What he calls "de facto atheism" is clearly agnosticism, and "weak atheism" is just one step removed from deism (just take out the word "not").

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Elyot ...Of course, these are not good enough to prove the hypothesis you stated, but they provide some evidence.

I don't mean to take quotes out of context, but I believe this is the key point right here. I would not be at all surprised to see that there is positive evidence for your claim along certain axes, such as academic achievement. I would bet you that there is also some evidence in favour of religion along other axes, such as community involvement. I've also seen studies linking higher intelligence (above a certain point) to lower happiness, so again that highlights the importance of clear definitions.

The point is that it's unscientific to draw broad conclusions based on such spotty evidence, especially conclusions so vaguely-worded. If what you're trying to say is "Average education levels are higher in secular communities, and from this we can infer that society in general would be more educated if religion were to disappear entirely" then that would be an easy claim to test (and I would probably believe you anyway). But to say, effectively, that the world would be a better place period... that sounds more like wishful thinking tempered with anger than a logical deduction from well-supported facts.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

Guess what I've concluded from this thread?
You guys like to type.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Hah, I didn't know he wrote this. What he calls "de facto atheism" is clearly agnosticism, and "weak atheism" is just one step removed from deism (just take out the word "not").

Certainly Dawkins didn't develop those terms, but he uses them quite a bit.

De facto atheism is not quite agnosticism. Agnosticism is part of all types of atheism except strong atheism. An agnostic claims that we do not or cannot know for certain whether there is a god, but does not define a particular belief or system for making decisions.

An agnostic may very well choose to live their life as if a god exists via arguments like Pascal's wager. A weak atheist asserts that god is unlikely, and a de facto atheist makes the same decisions in life that a strong atheist would, but doesn't assert that there is no god.

___________________
I am nobody. Nobody is perfect. Therefore I am perfect.

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded

quote:

Originally posted by Yohan

That one's gonna piss quite a few people off, eh?

___________________
I am nobody. Nobody is perfect. Therefore I am perfect.

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie

It's funny... all this discussion and essentially we have the same position; the existence of god(s) or no god(s) is unprovable... it would seem the only difference is that I am willing to admit that is the case. I don't know you but you seem to be a logical and intelligent person, as such you should understand that a probability is not a certainty; therefore, any position stated as a certainty which is, in fact, predicated on a probability is a belief rather then knowledge. Ultimately, both theism and atheism are beliefs.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down