|
On October 17 2013 17:23 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 17:21 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 17:19 Tobberoth wrote:On October 17 2013 17:08 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 17:02 Tobberoth wrote:On October 17 2013 16:51 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 16:44 Tobberoth wrote:On October 17 2013 16:40 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 16:37 Tobberoth wrote:On October 17 2013 16:30 packrat386 wrote:
3: We have checked a LOT of space and found relatively little teapots. Also, even if there is still a lot of space that we haven't checked, in the case of the teapot we at least have a body of evidence from which to draw conclusions. In the case of God we have no such body of evidence. Also, it is this body of evidence that makes the teapot argument seem so ridiculous. That's not the point of the teapot argument though. He could just as well have said "an invisible undetectable teapot". The point is that if you make a claim that can't be proven, people have zero reason to believe you, so it's up to you to supply the proof. I'm not trying to convert anyone so the argument that I ought to be providing proof is nonsensical. I have argued noqhere that God exists, nor will I. My argument is that God could exist, and yet you all have the gall to concede that argument in your post and then say that I'm somehow wrong. Also, that is a better example. If someone tells me that there is an invisible undetectable teapot somewhere in space, I wouldn't say that s/he is "obviously" wrong. I didn't say you're wrong. I was just correcting the discussion since it moved away from the general theme, people could be confused if they read your post and didn't know the point of the actual teapot argument. Like you said, the teapot argument doesn't mean god can't exist and people who say he could are wrong. It only shows that if people claim god exists, the burden of proof is on them, no one has to prove that god doesn't exist because it makes more sense to start with a clean slate and not believe him until proven wrong than the other way around. I have no reason to believe in an invisible teapot in space, and by that same token, I have no reason to believe in God. That said, both the invisible teapot and God COULD exist. So when i said I came to a different conclusion from Russel, I have to admit that I was making a stronger claim than just that, just not one that had come up earlier. In the case of God since we have no set of data to compare it with, it seems to me that there is no reason why it makes any more "sense" to start with a clean slate in that sense. I think that Russel does a good job of setting up an argument that sounds convincing, but doesn't really make the point that he has in mind. The reason it seems more reasonable to reject the teapot than accept it is precisely because of the fact that we have a body of evidence in which we have observed some space and not seen teapots in it. Yes, we can't conclusively prove it, but we do have some reason to infer that it is less likely than the alternative. Thus we have the gut reaction of wanting to believe that there is no teapot. However in the case of God we have no such body of evidence thus no reason to believe that God is less likely than an alternative. The only reason therefore to reject the God hypothesis is from the argument that complicated systems are inherently less likely than simple ones. However in the case of universes, we once again have no evidence to support this claim, and any claims based on smaller subsets of the universe would be a massive extrapolation. Thus it seems like there is no reason for us to err on the side of simpler systems. The reason that I don't really care for that detail is that I think the teapot is hardly the best argument against either the existence or belief in God. A far better response is that ones own belief is equally justified as the person who is trying to convince you, and thus you have no reason to change your mind. You're still missing the point of the teapot argument. The point of the argument is that when "God exists" is brought up, "Prove he does" makes sense, "Prove he doesn't" does not. The body of evidence against the teapot is completely irrelevant, we have no body of evidence what so ever that there isn't an invisible teapot between the sun and mars. In fact, space might be filled with invisible teapots. The teapot is just an arbitrary example, you could just say God A and God B instead. Anyone can make up anything, but if they have no basis, they have no case, no one has to prove them wrong. You simply apply that general logic to god, and you have the reasoning why the burden on proof is always on the person claiming something. I have no reason to believe in invisible teapots. I have no reason to believe in Vishnu. I have no reason to believe in the christian God. I have no reason to believe in any God. The lack of body of evidence is exactly why. The lack of evidence implies nothing because its a different kind of lack of evidence. In the case of the teapot its that we looked and there were teapots. In the case of God(s) we couldn't look. Thus empirics can come to no conclusion about the situation. Your argument is based on the premise that we ought to prefer the "simpler" cases in which we have to assume the least things. However there is no reason to believe that this premise is true. The premise also doesn't pass its own test, because it would be a "simpler" system if each outcome was equally likely. Basically, this whole thing requires occam's razor, for which you can provide no proof. Edit: Just wanted to say that I did read your edit. You still rely on the idea that the simpler system is more likely without a justification for that claim. The justification is right there in my post: If you assume everything exists, your existance becomes ridiculous. We accept that something we have no reason to believe exist doesn't exist because it's practical. Nobody assumes that everything exists. After you reject those things that are illogical (a square circle) and those for which there exists evidence against (zombies in my closet) you aren't left with so many things that our existence is ridiculous. We are left with infinite amount of things. For example, every single God any human has ever believed in. Invisible teapots in space. Pink unicorns with laserswords. Talking cats. Humans which are actually a million years old.
Every single god taken together is logically contradictory since part of the definition of almost all of them is that they are unique. Everything else is fine assuming that our belief in their existence is confined to those places where we can't observe them. I've been to a lot of places and have yet to see a single pink unicorn with a lasersword 
Also, my argument is only that they are equally likely, not that we should presume for God.
|
On October 17 2013 17:29 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 17:23 Tobberoth wrote:On October 17 2013 17:21 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 17:19 Tobberoth wrote:On October 17 2013 17:08 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 17:02 Tobberoth wrote:On October 17 2013 16:51 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 16:44 Tobberoth wrote:On October 17 2013 16:40 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 16:37 Tobberoth wrote:
[quote]
That's not the point of the teapot argument though. He could just as well have said "an invisible undetectable teapot". The point is that if you make a claim that can't be proven, people have zero reason to believe you, so it's up to you to supply the proof. I'm not trying to convert anyone so the argument that I ought to be providing proof is nonsensical. I have argued noqhere that God exists, nor will I. My argument is that God could exist, and yet you all have the gall to concede that argument in your post and then say that I'm somehow wrong. Also, that is a better example. If someone tells me that there is an invisible undetectable teapot somewhere in space, I wouldn't say that s/he is "obviously" wrong. I didn't say you're wrong. I was just correcting the discussion since it moved away from the general theme, people could be confused if they read your post and didn't know the point of the actual teapot argument. Like you said, the teapot argument doesn't mean god can't exist and people who say he could are wrong. It only shows that if people claim god exists, the burden of proof is on them, no one has to prove that god doesn't exist because it makes more sense to start with a clean slate and not believe him until proven wrong than the other way around. I have no reason to believe in an invisible teapot in space, and by that same token, I have no reason to believe in God. That said, both the invisible teapot and God COULD exist. So when i said I came to a different conclusion from Russel, I have to admit that I was making a stronger claim than just that, just not one that had come up earlier. In the case of God since we have no set of data to compare it with, it seems to me that there is no reason why it makes any more "sense" to start with a clean slate in that sense. I think that Russel does a good job of setting up an argument that sounds convincing, but doesn't really make the point that he has in mind. The reason it seems more reasonable to reject the teapot than accept it is precisely because of the fact that we have a body of evidence in which we have observed some space and not seen teapots in it. Yes, we can't conclusively prove it, but we do have some reason to infer that it is less likely than the alternative. Thus we have the gut reaction of wanting to believe that there is no teapot. However in the case of God we have no such body of evidence thus no reason to believe that God is less likely than an alternative. The only reason therefore to reject the God hypothesis is from the argument that complicated systems are inherently less likely than simple ones. However in the case of universes, we once again have no evidence to support this claim, and any claims based on smaller subsets of the universe would be a massive extrapolation. Thus it seems like there is no reason for us to err on the side of simpler systems. The reason that I don't really care for that detail is that I think the teapot is hardly the best argument against either the existence or belief in God. A far better response is that ones own belief is equally justified as the person who is trying to convince you, and thus you have no reason to change your mind. You're still missing the point of the teapot argument. The point of the argument is that when "God exists" is brought up, "Prove he does" makes sense, "Prove he doesn't" does not. The body of evidence against the teapot is completely irrelevant, we have no body of evidence what so ever that there isn't an invisible teapot between the sun and mars. In fact, space might be filled with invisible teapots. The teapot is just an arbitrary example, you could just say God A and God B instead. Anyone can make up anything, but if they have no basis, they have no case, no one has to prove them wrong. You simply apply that general logic to god, and you have the reasoning why the burden on proof is always on the person claiming something. I have no reason to believe in invisible teapots. I have no reason to believe in Vishnu. I have no reason to believe in the christian God. I have no reason to believe in any God. The lack of body of evidence is exactly why. The lack of evidence implies nothing because its a different kind of lack of evidence. In the case of the teapot its that we looked and there were teapots. In the case of God(s) we couldn't look. Thus empirics can come to no conclusion about the situation. Your argument is based on the premise that we ought to prefer the "simpler" cases in which we have to assume the least things. However there is no reason to believe that this premise is true. The premise also doesn't pass its own test, because it would be a "simpler" system if each outcome was equally likely. Basically, this whole thing requires occam's razor, for which you can provide no proof. Edit: Just wanted to say that I did read your edit. You still rely on the idea that the simpler system is more likely without a justification for that claim. The justification is right there in my post: If you assume everything exists, your existance becomes ridiculous. We accept that something we have no reason to believe exist doesn't exist because it's practical. Nobody assumes that everything exists. After you reject those things that are illogical (a square circle) and those for which there exists evidence against (zombies in my closet) you aren't left with so many things that our existence is ridiculous. We are left with infinite amount of things. For example, every single God any human has ever believed in. Invisible teapots in space. Pink unicorns with laserswords. Talking cats. Humans which are actually a million years old. Every single god taken together is logically contradictory since part of the definition of almost all of them is that they are unique. Everything else is fine assuming that our belief in their existence is confined to those places where we can't observe them. I've been to a lot of places and have yet to see a single pink unicorn with a lasersword Also, my argument is only that they are equally likely, not that we should presume for God.
No one has said they aren't equally likely. In fact, that's the whole point. The chance of teapots in space are equally likely to God existing. Problem is, Christians will usually not accept that, which is why the teapot argument is actually an argument.
Remember, we do not believe in the teapots because it's practical to not assume shit exists, like the supernatural McCheese. The likelyhood of them existing being equal is irrelevant.
|
On October 17 2013 17:24 Myrkskog wrote:
So when I say that supernatural Mayor McCheese exists. Your default position is to believe me until it is proven that supernatural Mayor McCheese does not exist?
I don't know how this object is defined, but assuming that you're going to define it such that it can't be observed and is not logically contradictory, I have no default. Neither belief that it exists nor belief that it doesn't exist is more logical.
|
On October 17 2013 17:31 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 17:29 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 17:23 Tobberoth wrote:On October 17 2013 17:21 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 17:19 Tobberoth wrote:On October 17 2013 17:08 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 17:02 Tobberoth wrote:On October 17 2013 16:51 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 16:44 Tobberoth wrote:On October 17 2013 16:40 packrat386 wrote:
[quote]
I'm not trying to convert anyone so the argument that I ought to be providing proof is nonsensical. I have argued noqhere that God exists, nor will I. My argument is that God could exist, and yet you all have the gall to concede that argument in your post and then say that I'm somehow wrong. Also, that is a better example. If someone tells me that there is an invisible undetectable teapot somewhere in space, I wouldn't say that s/he is "obviously" wrong. I didn't say you're wrong. I was just correcting the discussion since it moved away from the general theme, people could be confused if they read your post and didn't know the point of the actual teapot argument. Like you said, the teapot argument doesn't mean god can't exist and people who say he could are wrong. It only shows that if people claim god exists, the burden of proof is on them, no one has to prove that god doesn't exist because it makes more sense to start with a clean slate and not believe him until proven wrong than the other way around. I have no reason to believe in an invisible teapot in space, and by that same token, I have no reason to believe in God. That said, both the invisible teapot and God COULD exist. So when i said I came to a different conclusion from Russel, I have to admit that I was making a stronger claim than just that, just not one that had come up earlier. In the case of God since we have no set of data to compare it with, it seems to me that there is no reason why it makes any more "sense" to start with a clean slate in that sense. I think that Russel does a good job of setting up an argument that sounds convincing, but doesn't really make the point that he has in mind. The reason it seems more reasonable to reject the teapot than accept it is precisely because of the fact that we have a body of evidence in which we have observed some space and not seen teapots in it. Yes, we can't conclusively prove it, but we do have some reason to infer that it is less likely than the alternative. Thus we have the gut reaction of wanting to believe that there is no teapot. However in the case of God we have no such body of evidence thus no reason to believe that God is less likely than an alternative. The only reason therefore to reject the God hypothesis is from the argument that complicated systems are inherently less likely than simple ones. However in the case of universes, we once again have no evidence to support this claim, and any claims based on smaller subsets of the universe would be a massive extrapolation. Thus it seems like there is no reason for us to err on the side of simpler systems. The reason that I don't really care for that detail is that I think the teapot is hardly the best argument against either the existence or belief in God. A far better response is that ones own belief is equally justified as the person who is trying to convince you, and thus you have no reason to change your mind. You're still missing the point of the teapot argument. The point of the argument is that when "God exists" is brought up, "Prove he does" makes sense, "Prove he doesn't" does not. The body of evidence against the teapot is completely irrelevant, we have no body of evidence what so ever that there isn't an invisible teapot between the sun and mars. In fact, space might be filled with invisible teapots. The teapot is just an arbitrary example, you could just say God A and God B instead. Anyone can make up anything, but if they have no basis, they have no case, no one has to prove them wrong. You simply apply that general logic to god, and you have the reasoning why the burden on proof is always on the person claiming something. I have no reason to believe in invisible teapots. I have no reason to believe in Vishnu. I have no reason to believe in the christian God. I have no reason to believe in any God. The lack of body of evidence is exactly why. The lack of evidence implies nothing because its a different kind of lack of evidence. In the case of the teapot its that we looked and there were teapots. In the case of God(s) we couldn't look. Thus empirics can come to no conclusion about the situation. Your argument is based on the premise that we ought to prefer the "simpler" cases in which we have to assume the least things. However there is no reason to believe that this premise is true. The premise also doesn't pass its own test, because it would be a "simpler" system if each outcome was equally likely. Basically, this whole thing requires occam's razor, for which you can provide no proof. Edit: Just wanted to say that I did read your edit. You still rely on the idea that the simpler system is more likely without a justification for that claim. The justification is right there in my post: If you assume everything exists, your existance becomes ridiculous. We accept that something we have no reason to believe exist doesn't exist because it's practical. Nobody assumes that everything exists. After you reject those things that are illogical (a square circle) and those for which there exists evidence against (zombies in my closet) you aren't left with so many things that our existence is ridiculous. We are left with infinite amount of things. For example, every single God any human has ever believed in. Invisible teapots in space. Pink unicorns with laserswords. Talking cats. Humans which are actually a million years old. Every single god taken together is logically contradictory since part of the definition of almost all of them is that they are unique. Everything else is fine assuming that our belief in their existence is confined to those places where we can't observe them. I've been to a lot of places and have yet to see a single pink unicorn with a lasersword Also, my argument is only that they are equally likely, not that we should presume for God. No one has said they aren't equally likely. In fact, that's the whole point. The chance of teapots in space are equally likely to God existing. Problem is, Christians will usually not accept that, which is why the teapot argument is actually an argument.
wait wait, they have to be invisble undetectable teapots, not just the average teapot. If so then yes they seem equally likely to me. It is also equally likely that God exists or God doesn't exist.
Also, someone brought up Kierkegaard, which is a good segue into how to justify Christianity in the case that I'm right. Belief in God is necessarily a leap of faith, that's what makes it special.
|
On October 17 2013 17:31 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 17:24 Myrkskog wrote:
So when I say that supernatural Mayor McCheese exists. Your default position is to believe me until it is proven that supernatural Mayor McCheese does not exist? I don't know how this object is defined, but assuming that you're going to define it such that it can't be observed and is not logically contradictory, I have no default. Neither belief that it exists nor belief that it doesn't exist is more logical.
Belief that it doesn't exist is more logical. You have never seen it, which indicates it doesn't exist. You have no proof to counter that. Since that indication, no matter how weak, is stronger than nothing, it's more logical to go with the stance that it doesn't exist.
|
On October 17 2013 17:33 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 17:31 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 17:24 Myrkskog wrote:
So when I say that supernatural Mayor McCheese exists. Your default position is to believe me until it is proven that supernatural Mayor McCheese does not exist? I don't know how this object is defined, but assuming that you're going to define it such that it can't be observed and is not logically contradictory, I have no default. Neither belief that it exists nor belief that it doesn't exist is more logical. Belief that it doesn't exist is more logical. You have never seen it, which indicates it doesn't exist. You have no proof to counter that. Since that indication, no matter how weak, is stronger than nothing, it's more logical to go with the stance that it doesn't exist.
I thought we had a breakthrough like 2 comments earlier, but I guess not. Not having seen God is not an indicator because I haven't looked in the right place. If I take as a hypothesis that there are socks *in my sock drawer* and then I look around Central Park and see no socks, I can't take that as evidence that there are not socks *in my sock drawer*. The hypothesis in this case is that there is a God *outside the material universe* so I can't gather any evidence about it as long as I am looking within the material universe.
|
On October 17 2013 17:38 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 17:33 Tobberoth wrote:On October 17 2013 17:31 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 17:24 Myrkskog wrote:
So when I say that supernatural Mayor McCheese exists. Your default position is to believe me until it is proven that supernatural Mayor McCheese does not exist? I don't know how this object is defined, but assuming that you're going to define it such that it can't be observed and is not logically contradictory, I have no default. Neither belief that it exists nor belief that it doesn't exist is more logical. Belief that it doesn't exist is more logical. You have never seen it, which indicates it doesn't exist. You have no proof to counter that. Since that indication, no matter how weak, is stronger than nothing, it's more logical to go with the stance that it doesn't exist. I thought we had a breakthrough like 2 comments earlier, but I guess not. Not having seen God is not an indicator because I haven't looked in the right place. If I take as a hypothesis that there are socks *in my sock drawer* and then I look around Central Park and see no socks, I can't take that as evidence that there are not socks *in my sock drawer*. The hypothesis in this case is that there is a God *outside the material universe* so I can't gather any evidence about it as long as I am looking within the material universe.
Your argument is thus, more or less, that since god doesn't exist, you can't say he doesn't exist. God is in a place we can't look and can't affect us (because if he can affect us, that's all the body of proof we need). Thus, it's identical to him not existing. Like before, the burden on proof is on the people saying he exists.
Consider the teapots again. Let's say they are phasic cloaked, meaning they are 100% undetectable and even if we took a spaceship and flew through the teapot, we would notice nothing. What's the point of saying it exists? For all intents and purposes, it does not.
|
But you argued that this god interacts with the material world.
|
I need to sleep, but I will address those concerns tomorrow.
|
On October 17 2013 01:40 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 01:32 woreyour wrote:On October 17 2013 01:22 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 01:17 woreyour wrote:On October 17 2013 00:51 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 00:32 woreyour wrote:
Its like god is god, deal with it. He is so powerful he can do anything.
He has the divide by zero power but when asked for proof, no proof. Why? because he is god why do i need a proof?
If I prove him I would just be doubting him = not faithful. Damn, this idea gives you no choice, it is a lose lose situation.
Amazing how these people able to convince people to believe this. What is the motivation? fear of after life? Lol, this is such a terrible conception of faith. The argument that God ought to be able to do things that are illogical has already been addressed several times, and nobody is arguing that you can't discuss proofs of God for fear of being being considered unfaithful. You guys need to learn the principle of charity in arguments. Anyway, the reason I made my post earlier was not to say that nobody has ever offered a proof for why there is no god. Several of such proofs have been proposed (although there are objections to all of them), as well as proofs for why god must exist necessarily. I was just trying to say that its silly when atheists treat the issue like it should be obvious to any logical person that god doesn't exist. The answer isn't very obvious at all, and is a pretty complicated topic in modern philosophy. that is the "catholic" conception of faith for you by the way  as well as for some other smaller sects and smaller churches. They cannot doubt god, if they do and start asking questions, their church leader would have them "prayed over" to scare the demons away. Questioning god or faith in god is considered "demonic" acts. So hardcore really. Since there are a million kinds of "christians" it is really hard to start unless we define each and every term. Simple reason would only just to explain your proof and why do you think it is, tell us why do think it is and why do you think you are correct and I will "try" to tell you why. We dont need to be smart asses here and learn basics of debate and principle X and Y or read the book of W and Z reference. why would we offer proof of there is no god? It is really simple, first we are not the one claiming of a "god" being. So we require your statement and proof for us to make sense of it. We are not the ones who is saying Jesus is the only savior .... if you are saying that to us, how can you convince us to believe in jesus in a way we can make sense? I dont think there is a necessity to prove a god should exist. Yes it is complicated, that is why we discuss it, probably we can start convincing one another and achieve something. Lol, I went to Catholic church for 16 years and none of that is canon. You should check out the Jesuits sometime. Some of them actually offered some of the best refutations of proofs FOR god. I've explained to you a dozen times why you need to have proof against god and why Christianity doesn't claim proof of god necessarily. If you haven't gotten it by now I can't really explain it in any more detail. I went to Catholic schools, went to different churches and been with these bible study groups, that how they would stop the arguement. You cant argue this else you are doing sin -Full stop. See what they did there? That is why if you are the kind that just does not take something told to you as an answer you will more likely look for it yourself and end up further from what was tought to you. One can really have a hard time to be convince with these, there are a million kinds of christians - "christians" themselves dont agree with each other. What you did is to reverse it, claiming we should be the one proving that there should be a god, why not prove allah, Ra and zues then? its still a god.. Not gonna explain again why you need proof. I already gave you those explanations a while back. Also, check out the Jesuits. Perhaps your church experience was bad, but that's not church doctrine at all
actually not all bad, i attend this church, very good one, nice people and great ambiance ( their church). I started dating this girl there, she was so fine yet so conservative. It was a good run but and we eventually split (nothing religious related) I also still keep in touch with the other people even with her until she was not single again. They are good people, some of them also dont take it seriously like hardcore do this do that. It was just like a place to go on sundays and no one is really pushy, most of the times it was about sharing life and real life examples but when they start disecting scriptures and relating it to life like how jesus lived it was bland and generalized and I was fine with it.
I just hated the churches that push stuff and made up shit to control people, like theres this church that you need to give 15% of your income to them. Also theres this church that if you dont convert, members cant accept you.
By the way, pro tip, churches have the fine girls, conservative and kind. If you get lucky you'll get some freaky ones too but then I laugh when they remorse after and pray to say sorry to jesus after pre-marital sex..
|
On October 17 2013 15:27 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 15:22 IgnE wrote:On October 17 2013 15:18 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 13:17 Myrkskog wrote:On October 17 2013 10:08 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 06:02 Myrkskog wrote:On October 17 2013 05:57 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 05:56 Myrkskog wrote:On October 17 2013 05:44 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 05:41 Myrkskog wrote:
What evidence is there that the god you are defending can affect a person's consciousness? arguably testimony. People have said that they have an interaction with god when they pray, and it is very difficult to show otherwise. So have you had an experience with god through prayer? No, but I might believe some people do. I might believe that they had some experience also. But there is no justification for either of us to accept that the reason for this experience is god. Since there is no evidence otherwise, I can't reject that as an explanation. The rational thing to do is to not believe the claim that god was the cause until there is evidence. As a scientist why would I reject something in absence of evidence to the contrary? I have a hypothesis that God exists, and yet no experiment that I can run would prove or disprove this claim. Science doesn't tell me to reject my hypothesis. Usually you have some reasons for why you chose one hypothesis rather than another. Do we really have to go down the teapot road? I know the teapot example, but i come to a different conclusion about it than Russel does. My argument is first and foremost that you shouldn't reject the hypothesis that the teapot (or God) exists, which is something even Russel would arguably argee with. The teapot example is in the context of attempting to convert or argue that God does exist vs simply allowing for belief. Second, the implications for believing in God are larger than the implications for believing in the teapot. Whether or not the teapot exists has no bearing on my life, but God seems to have a rather large effect. Perhaps I might err on the side of trying to have a connection with something beyond me (i.e pascal's wager). Lastly, the teapot is a bad example because we have observed teapots and we have observed space and we have generally come to the conclusion that space is teapot free. However in the case of God, its not like we have checked outside the material universe and often found it to be lacking gods.
Please tell me more about the implications of believing in God. Pascal's wager is the dumbest thing Pascal ever said.
edit - oops I guess a page of discussion has happened since then
|
On October 17 2013 17:29 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 17:23 Tobberoth wrote:On October 17 2013 17:21 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 17:19 Tobberoth wrote:On October 17 2013 17:08 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 17:02 Tobberoth wrote:On October 17 2013 16:51 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 16:44 Tobberoth wrote:On October 17 2013 16:40 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 16:37 Tobberoth wrote:
[quote]
That's not the point of the teapot argument though. He could just as well have said "an invisible undetectable teapot". The point is that if you make a claim that can't be proven, people have zero reason to believe you, so it's up to you to supply the proof. I'm not trying to convert anyone so the argument that I ought to be providing proof is nonsensical. I have argued noqhere that God exists, nor will I. My argument is that God could exist, and yet you all have the gall to concede that argument in your post and then say that I'm somehow wrong. Also, that is a better example. If someone tells me that there is an invisible undetectable teapot somewhere in space, I wouldn't say that s/he is "obviously" wrong. I didn't say you're wrong. I was just correcting the discussion since it moved away from the general theme, people could be confused if they read your post and didn't know the point of the actual teapot argument. Like you said, the teapot argument doesn't mean god can't exist and people who say he could are wrong. It only shows that if people claim god exists, the burden of proof is on them, no one has to prove that god doesn't exist because it makes more sense to start with a clean slate and not believe him until proven wrong than the other way around. I have no reason to believe in an invisible teapot in space, and by that same token, I have no reason to believe in God. That said, both the invisible teapot and God COULD exist. So when i said I came to a different conclusion from Russel, I have to admit that I was making a stronger claim than just that, just not one that had come up earlier. In the case of God since we have no set of data to compare it with, it seems to me that there is no reason why it makes any more "sense" to start with a clean slate in that sense. I think that Russel does a good job of setting up an argument that sounds convincing, but doesn't really make the point that he has in mind. The reason it seems more reasonable to reject the teapot than accept it is precisely because of the fact that we have a body of evidence in which we have observed some space and not seen teapots in it. Yes, we can't conclusively prove it, but we do have some reason to infer that it is less likely than the alternative. Thus we have the gut reaction of wanting to believe that there is no teapot. However in the case of God we have no such body of evidence thus no reason to believe that God is less likely than an alternative. The only reason therefore to reject the God hypothesis is from the argument that complicated systems are inherently less likely than simple ones. However in the case of universes, we once again have no evidence to support this claim, and any claims based on smaller subsets of the universe would be a massive extrapolation. Thus it seems like there is no reason for us to err on the side of simpler systems. The reason that I don't really care for that detail is that I think the teapot is hardly the best argument against either the existence or belief in God. A far better response is that ones own belief is equally justified as the person who is trying to convince you, and thus you have no reason to change your mind. You're still missing the point of the teapot argument. The point of the argument is that when "God exists" is brought up, "Prove he does" makes sense, "Prove he doesn't" does not. The body of evidence against the teapot is completely irrelevant, we have no body of evidence what so ever that there isn't an invisible teapot between the sun and mars. In fact, space might be filled with invisible teapots. The teapot is just an arbitrary example, you could just say God A and God B instead. Anyone can make up anything, but if they have no basis, they have no case, no one has to prove them wrong. You simply apply that general logic to god, and you have the reasoning why the burden on proof is always on the person claiming something. I have no reason to believe in invisible teapots. I have no reason to believe in Vishnu. I have no reason to believe in the christian God. I have no reason to believe in any God. The lack of body of evidence is exactly why. The lack of evidence implies nothing because its a different kind of lack of evidence. In the case of the teapot its that we looked and there were teapots. In the case of God(s) we couldn't look. Thus empirics can come to no conclusion about the situation. Your argument is based on the premise that we ought to prefer the "simpler" cases in which we have to assume the least things. However there is no reason to believe that this premise is true. The premise also doesn't pass its own test, because it would be a "simpler" system if each outcome was equally likely. Basically, this whole thing requires occam's razor, for which you can provide no proof. Edit: Just wanted to say that I did read your edit. You still rely on the idea that the simpler system is more likely without a justification for that claim. The justification is right there in my post: If you assume everything exists, your existance becomes ridiculous. We accept that something we have no reason to believe exist doesn't exist because it's practical. Nobody assumes that everything exists. After you reject those things that are illogical (a square circle) and those for which there exists evidence against (zombies in my closet) you aren't left with so many things that our existence is ridiculous. We are left with infinite amount of things. For example, every single God any human has ever believed in. Invisible teapots in space. Pink unicorns with laserswords. Talking cats. Humans which are actually a million years old. Every single god taken together is logically contradictory since part of the definition of almost all of them is that they are unique. Everything else is fine assuming that our belief in their existence is confined to those places where we can't observe them. I've been to a lot of places and have yet to see a single pink unicorn with a lasersword Also, my argument is only that they are equally likely, not that we should presume for God.
The Romans got along just fine sacrificing to Jupiter, Isis, Mithras, and Baal. No contradiction there. It's only this Yahweh guy, AKA Elohim, AKA El, who tells his people not to sacrifice to those other gods.
|
On October 17 2013 17:38 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 17:33 Tobberoth wrote:On October 17 2013 17:31 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 17:24 Myrkskog wrote:
So when I say that supernatural Mayor McCheese exists. Your default position is to believe me until it is proven that supernatural Mayor McCheese does not exist? I don't know how this object is defined, but assuming that you're going to define it such that it can't be observed and is not logically contradictory, I have no default. Neither belief that it exists nor belief that it doesn't exist is more logical. Belief that it doesn't exist is more logical. You have never seen it, which indicates it doesn't exist. You have no proof to counter that. Since that indication, no matter how weak, is stronger than nothing, it's more logical to go with the stance that it doesn't exist. I thought we had a breakthrough like 2 comments earlier, but I guess not. Not having seen God is not an indicator because I haven't looked in the right place. If I take as a hypothesis that there are socks *in my sock drawer* and then I look around Central Park and see no socks, I can't take that as evidence that there are not socks *in my sock drawer*. The hypothesis in this case is that there is a God *outside the material universe* so I can't gather any evidence about it as long as I am looking within the material universe.
that is why "i dont know" is still better than "there should be a god" because I dont know does not say you need to prove it while there should be requires proof.
I would like to understand the thought process as to why "there should be a god" is what people would choose.
Why do think that? even without proof? are they to fill the void? ( we dont know stuff, it must be a god who did it)
so you havent looked in the right place? where would you say the right place is? in your heart?
if I were to prove santa, I can say I can go to north pole but then with god where? which god? would I go to mount olympus for zues?
also with the teapot arguement, you think it is silly to tie up your god with the teapot, saying: "hey this is god we are talking about" , " I have seen a teapot but not god" . "he is the reason for this all" but in my eyes a space teapot, santa, imaginary friend, zues, galactus and other godly beings are all the same, no evidence= probably does not exist.
I tell you something that I havent seen but I know it exist, gravity. Yes it does not exist but if you jump off a chair you will fall to the ground, you will feel it and it is true. These gods however only choose who he wants to feel? so they are like the ghost, spirits and stuff? If we sufffer natural calamities are these god actions? if then we just went backwards to when people praise nature and the elements.
|
On October 17 2013 17:33 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 17:31 Tobberoth wrote:On October 17 2013 17:29 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 17:23 Tobberoth wrote:On October 17 2013 17:21 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 17:19 Tobberoth wrote:On October 17 2013 17:08 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 17:02 Tobberoth wrote:On October 17 2013 16:51 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 16:44 Tobberoth wrote:
[quote]
I didn't say you're wrong. I was just correcting the discussion since it moved away from the general theme, people could be confused if they read your post and didn't know the point of the actual teapot argument.
Like you said, the teapot argument doesn't mean god can't exist and people who say he could are wrong. It only shows that if people claim god exists, the burden of proof is on them, no one has to prove that god doesn't exist because it makes more sense to start with a clean slate and not believe him until proven wrong than the other way around. I have no reason to believe in an invisible teapot in space, and by that same token, I have no reason to believe in God. That said, both the invisible teapot and God COULD exist. So when i said I came to a different conclusion from Russel, I have to admit that I was making a stronger claim than just that, just not one that had come up earlier. In the case of God since we have no set of data to compare it with, it seems to me that there is no reason why it makes any more "sense" to start with a clean slate in that sense. I think that Russel does a good job of setting up an argument that sounds convincing, but doesn't really make the point that he has in mind. The reason it seems more reasonable to reject the teapot than accept it is precisely because of the fact that we have a body of evidence in which we have observed some space and not seen teapots in it. Yes, we can't conclusively prove it, but we do have some reason to infer that it is less likely than the alternative. Thus we have the gut reaction of wanting to believe that there is no teapot. However in the case of God we have no such body of evidence thus no reason to believe that God is less likely than an alternative. The only reason therefore to reject the God hypothesis is from the argument that complicated systems are inherently less likely than simple ones. However in the case of universes, we once again have no evidence to support this claim, and any claims based on smaller subsets of the universe would be a massive extrapolation. Thus it seems like there is no reason for us to err on the side of simpler systems. The reason that I don't really care for that detail is that I think the teapot is hardly the best argument against either the existence or belief in God. A far better response is that ones own belief is equally justified as the person who is trying to convince you, and thus you have no reason to change your mind. You're still missing the point of the teapot argument. The point of the argument is that when "God exists" is brought up, "Prove he does" makes sense, "Prove he doesn't" does not. The body of evidence against the teapot is completely irrelevant, we have no body of evidence what so ever that there isn't an invisible teapot between the sun and mars. In fact, space might be filled with invisible teapots. The teapot is just an arbitrary example, you could just say God A and God B instead. Anyone can make up anything, but if they have no basis, they have no case, no one has to prove them wrong. You simply apply that general logic to god, and you have the reasoning why the burden on proof is always on the person claiming something. I have no reason to believe in invisible teapots. I have no reason to believe in Vishnu. I have no reason to believe in the christian God. I have no reason to believe in any God. The lack of body of evidence is exactly why. The lack of evidence implies nothing because its a different kind of lack of evidence. In the case of the teapot its that we looked and there were teapots. In the case of God(s) we couldn't look. Thus empirics can come to no conclusion about the situation. Your argument is based on the premise that we ought to prefer the "simpler" cases in which we have to assume the least things. However there is no reason to believe that this premise is true. The premise also doesn't pass its own test, because it would be a "simpler" system if each outcome was equally likely. Basically, this whole thing requires occam's razor, for which you can provide no proof. Edit: Just wanted to say that I did read your edit. You still rely on the idea that the simpler system is more likely without a justification for that claim. The justification is right there in my post: If you assume everything exists, your existance becomes ridiculous. We accept that something we have no reason to believe exist doesn't exist because it's practical. Nobody assumes that everything exists. After you reject those things that are illogical (a square circle) and those for which there exists evidence against (zombies in my closet) you aren't left with so many things that our existence is ridiculous. We are left with infinite amount of things. For example, every single God any human has ever believed in. Invisible teapots in space. Pink unicorns with laserswords. Talking cats. Humans which are actually a million years old. Every single god taken together is logically contradictory since part of the definition of almost all of them is that they are unique. Everything else is fine assuming that our belief in their existence is confined to those places where we can't observe them. I've been to a lot of places and have yet to see a single pink unicorn with a lasersword Also, my argument is only that they are equally likely, not that we should presume for God. No one has said they aren't equally likely. In fact, that's the whole point. The chance of teapots in space are equally likely to God existing. Problem is, Christians will usually not accept that, which is why the teapot argument is actually an argument. wait wait, they have to be invisble undetectable teapots, not just the average teapot. If so then yes they seem equally likely to me. It is also equally likely that God exists or God doesn't exist. Also, someone brought up Kierkegaard, which is a good segue into how to justify Christianity in the case that I'm right. Belief in God is necessarily a leap of faith, that's what makes it special.
Idk why you get to tack odds of 50% on God's existence... Fifty percent that he does, fifty percent he doesnt, fifty percent another god exists... Fifty percent for everybody! Come on.
|
On October 17 2013 15:18 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 13:17 Myrkskog wrote:On October 17 2013 10:08 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 06:02 Myrkskog wrote:On October 17 2013 05:57 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 05:56 Myrkskog wrote:On October 17 2013 05:44 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 05:41 Myrkskog wrote:
What evidence is there that the god you are defending can affect a person's consciousness? arguably testimony. People have said that they have an interaction with god when they pray, and it is very difficult to show otherwise. So have you had an experience with god through prayer? No, but I might believe some people do. I might believe that they had some experience also. But there is no justification for either of us to accept that the reason for this experience is god. Since there is no evidence otherwise, I can't reject that as an explanation. The rational thing to do is to not believe the claim that god was the cause until there is evidence. As a scientist why would I reject something in absence of evidence to the contrary? I have a hypothesis that God exists, and yet no experiment that I can run would prove or disprove this claim. Science doesn't tell me to reject my hypothesis.
Yet i have managed to reject the Christian God, with solid, nigh-undisputable evidence. Hah!
|
On October 17 2013 22:49 ffreakk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 15:18 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 13:17 Myrkskog wrote:On October 17 2013 10:08 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 06:02 Myrkskog wrote:On October 17 2013 05:57 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 05:56 Myrkskog wrote:On October 17 2013 05:44 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 05:41 Myrkskog wrote:
What evidence is there that the god you are defending can affect a person's consciousness? arguably testimony. People have said that they have an interaction with god when they pray, and it is very difficult to show otherwise. So have you had an experience with god through prayer? No, but I might believe some people do. I might believe that they had some experience also. But there is no justification for either of us to accept that the reason for this experience is god. Since there is no evidence otherwise, I can't reject that as an explanation. The rational thing to do is to not believe the claim that god was the cause until there is evidence. As a scientist why would I reject something in absence of evidence to the contrary? I have a hypothesis that God exists, and yet no experiment that I can run would prove or disprove this claim. Science doesn't tell me to reject my hypothesis. Yet i have managed to reject the Christian God, with solid, nigh-undisputable evidence. Hah!
Thats not possible, you can't have evidence for the non-existence of something. The lack of evidence on their side just suggests sloppiness
|
On October 17 2013 23:06 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 22:49 ffreakk wrote:On October 17 2013 15:18 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 13:17 Myrkskog wrote:On October 17 2013 10:08 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 06:02 Myrkskog wrote:On October 17 2013 05:57 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 05:56 Myrkskog wrote:On October 17 2013 05:44 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 05:41 Myrkskog wrote:
What evidence is there that the god you are defending can affect a person's consciousness? arguably testimony. People have said that they have an interaction with god when they pray, and it is very difficult to show otherwise. So have you had an experience with god through prayer? No, but I might believe some people do. I might believe that they had some experience also. But there is no justification for either of us to accept that the reason for this experience is god. Since there is no evidence otherwise, I can't reject that as an explanation. The rational thing to do is to not believe the claim that god was the cause until there is evidence. As a scientist why would I reject something in absence of evidence to the contrary? I have a hypothesis that God exists, and yet no experiment that I can run would prove or disprove this claim. Science doesn't tell me to reject my hypothesis. Yet i have managed to reject the Christian God, with solid, nigh-undisputable evidence. Hah! Thats not possible, you can't have evidence for the non-existence of something. The lack of evidence on their side just suggests sloppiness
He kinda have to believe me due to "absence of evidence to the contrary".
I'm not talking to you rational people. :p
|
On October 17 2013 23:10 ffreakk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 23:06 Djzapz wrote:On October 17 2013 22:49 ffreakk wrote:On October 17 2013 15:18 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 13:17 Myrkskog wrote:On October 17 2013 10:08 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 06:02 Myrkskog wrote:On October 17 2013 05:57 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 05:56 Myrkskog wrote:On October 17 2013 05:44 packrat386 wrote:
[quote]
arguably testimony. People have said that they have an interaction with god when they pray, and it is very difficult to show otherwise. So have you had an experience with god through prayer? No, but I might believe some people do. I might believe that they had some experience also. But there is no justification for either of us to accept that the reason for this experience is god. Since there is no evidence otherwise, I can't reject that as an explanation. The rational thing to do is to not believe the claim that god was the cause until there is evidence. As a scientist why would I reject something in absence of evidence to the contrary? I have a hypothesis that God exists, and yet no experiment that I can run would prove or disprove this claim. Science doesn't tell me to reject my hypothesis. Yet i have managed to reject the Christian God, with solid, nigh-undisputable evidence. Hah! Thats not possible, you can't have evidence for the non-existence of something. The lack of evidence on their side just suggests sloppiness He kinda have to believe me due to "absence of evidence to the contrary". I'm not talking to you rational people. :p
That's pretty cute but the evidence of the contrary is that you can't have evidence for a negative :p
|
On October 17 2013 23:10 ffreakk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 23:06 Djzapz wrote:On October 17 2013 22:49 ffreakk wrote:On October 17 2013 15:18 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 13:17 Myrkskog wrote:On October 17 2013 10:08 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 06:02 Myrkskog wrote:On October 17 2013 05:57 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 05:56 Myrkskog wrote:On October 17 2013 05:44 packrat386 wrote:
[quote]
arguably testimony. People have said that they have an interaction with god when they pray, and it is very difficult to show otherwise. So have you had an experience with god through prayer? No, but I might believe some people do. I might believe that they had some experience also. But there is no justification for either of us to accept that the reason for this experience is god. Since there is no evidence otherwise, I can't reject that as an explanation. The rational thing to do is to not believe the claim that god was the cause until there is evidence. As a scientist why would I reject something in absence of evidence to the contrary? I have a hypothesis that God exists, and yet no experiment that I can run would prove or disprove this claim. Science doesn't tell me to reject my hypothesis. Yet i have managed to reject the Christian God, with solid, nigh-undisputable evidence. Hah! Thats not possible, you can't have evidence for the non-existence of something. The lack of evidence on their side just suggests sloppiness He kinda have to believe me due to "absence of evidence to the contrary". I'm not talking to you rational people. :p
lol his hypothesis of "god exist" would most likely be rejected, because guess what comes after hypothesis what do u do? test it. And if you failed to test it, it gets scrapped. Thats why it is the scientific method and yes science will tell you that you need to reject your "educated guess" as you cant test/experiment/ prove it.
|
What does anyone even accomplish with all this speculative nonsense on whether there is/can be a God? You're just assuaging your insecurities and grasping at straws. This is mostly pointed to the religious apologia. Trying to safeguard faith by endlessly retreating into the limits of rationality is pathetic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
