There is a clear difference between faith and a conclusion based on evidence or lack thereof.

Two theories arise debating what a distant unseen planet is made of: One claims that it could be made out of pure lead, the other claims it is likely the same as a gas giant or solid planet in our star system. Now, we have absolutely no direct evidence that the planet is actually one thing or the other. However, we will likely conclude that it is not made out of lead based on the lack of evidence that such a thing is possible. It's not faith, it's a logical conclusion (even if it turns out to be wrong).

Now you are being ridiculous! Of course Aphrodite isn't the reason.

It was clearly Hermes.

What I'm saying is you can list things which do exist.

1. vampire bats
2. People who are described as "dinosaurs" colloquially have built helicopters.
3. The belief in Yahweh does exist.
4. You have your own reasons for loving your husband which I'm sure are personal and need not be subjected to public inquiry.

Things that don't exist:

Nothing as you can't quantify such a nonentity even if you could prove without a doubt it didn't exist because you can't have zero of a thing.
Either it's quantifiable knowable using scientific method or it's not knowable. You can believe in the unlikelihood but never can you prove it doesn't exist.

One wonders, Elyasis, why you don't fear a flying red tiger isn't going to start stalking you down your furiously sleeping lollipop street tomorrow during yesterday. I'm surprised you trust your breakfast won't eat you, with apparently no basis to say that carnivorous breakfast cereals don't exist.

Am I imagining things, here, or has your entire argument boiled down to grossly abusing semantics in impressively specious ways?

This is sheer equivocation. You are changing the meaning of the terms that Kiwi gave to try to stretch them to fit things that actually exist. You are not addressing the actual things that he listed.



You just said that there is nothing that doesn't exist. Do you really think that the uncertainty about things lacking evidence actually means that every theoretical entity actually exists somewhere? Now you are siding with the theists. You are claiming that things that have no evidence, do, in fact, exist.

She's saying that everything has a finite possibility of existing. It may be unimaginably small, but it is still a possibility nonetheless. Hell, our universe may have been a product of one such nearly-infinitely small probability upon its true creation. You can argue it doesn't exist, but that possibility will still be there. Always.

Not only that, but again, I equate this to Lovecraft. It amuses me in that way. You are applying conventional logic to something that defies convention. It would be like trying to apply conventional science onto Cthulhu, or Yog-Sothoth, or Nyarlathotep, or Azathoth, or Shub-Niggurath, or Ubbo-Sathla, and I could go on. Any concept of deity is closer to these figures, not in relation to whether or not it exists, but by its mere alien existence. Or, to paraphrase, "things that shouldn't be, but were." That's the greatest folly of the argument of whether or not a deity exists: one side relies on pure faith to assume a deity physically exists in some material way (as, and I will repeat this once more, not every religious person agrees on this concept), while the other side applies the mundane to that which is alien.

As is the both of you not actually addressing the actually topic and are adding strawmen to your arguments.

You know, men made of straw are highly flammable.

No I don't and I never did. I said we can't know. It's not a binary people, surely you get that?

Why do you keep misrepresenting the things I have said?



Because I simply have to observe my surroundings. I don't need to worry about such things as they aren't observable. And are in fact, though within the realm of possibility, not likely to be seen in my day to day life.

Yes, you are imagining things. Must be why you are so good at coming up with absurdities. At least you'll always have a strong imagination.

It isn't my intention to misrepresent what you are saying, but I am analyzing your argument style and I find it illogical and often beside the point. You are using pure mental exercise to try to make an argument about the nature of the world, which can only be known through empirical means. And I would like to know what straw men you think I am creating. When I said that you said that there is nothing that doesn't exist, I was simply parsing precisely what you said in that post. Maybe it wasn't your intent, but you need to be clearer in what you say if you did not intend to say that.

Elyasis, have you recently read a Deepak Chopra book on quantum physics? Because Chopra has a certain flawed understanding of quantum physics that's apparently showing a mirroring in your own reasoning, a sort of "pop physics" that has the same sort of endorsement with actual physicists that Chopra's holistic/mystic medicine practices elicit in people who are still involved in doing something besides selling books and doing speaking engagements.

No I haven't actually, Mistermook. Most of my quantum physics comes from self study an some Science channel specials on the universe. While I realize these are flawed, there is still a lot we don't know in that field and it's expanding everyday. It's really a fun and interesting subject for me.

Parse my arse, Oaktree. You were misrepresenting my point from the beginning. It's simple enough to understand. You can not say without a doubt 100% that something doesn't exist. That in no way means there are things that don't exist you simply can't make that judgement yourself with the same lack of evidence the theists have. Yon can posit likelihoods but they are subject to the same lack of any evidence as well. It's easy for one to say, look in a box and see no God in the box and think that means God exists nowhere. It's foolish.

*simsample covers ears*


Atheists aren't holding that position, though- the burden of proof (if you see it as such) would fall on the one who holds that the god does exist.

But I think all atheists can really say is, there's no evidence for the existence of a god so therefore it is illogical to hold such a belief.

If you don't see any evidence of something existing then it is illogical to sustain that it exists because you don't see any evidence of it. No amount of quantum physics sustains any other position: Some of the bits and pieces in our knowledge of the universe are fairly illusive, but the more illusive evidence is the more it supports an understanding that any evidence contrary to the evidence will be woven into the fringes. Even the most earth shattering discoveries as of late, like the infinite, ever expanding universe didn't change our normal understanding of science. You can't simple wave at quantum physics and fit a god into there, that's not how science works. You're seeing the invisible cat in the chair, because you don't see a cat in the chair.

You want faith? That's faith. It's also a creepy paranoia of the unknown. "I don't see any evidence that the CIA is tapping my phone and rooting through my garbage, but if it's CIA then I wouldn't know, therefore the CIA must be tapping my phone and rooting through my garbage." I, on the other hand, can't say for certain that my garbage men aren't agents of national intelligence, but given experience and other evidence (my detailed plans for destroying the world I threw away on my dinner napkin the other week) I think it's safe to say that it's highly unlikely the CIA is in fact doing such. Which is the more logical position? Mine or yours?

I think you might be getting a little too emotional about this.



I never said that there was a 100% certainty of anything not existing. I never posited anything. I specifically said that things lacking evidence cannot be completely dismissed, but that there is a strong likelihood of things lacking evidence not existing. Further, it is illogical to claim that those things exist without evidence backing you (general) up. My argument is not simply "gods do not exist". My argument is that theists are making unevidenced claims and that the likelihood, given the lack of evidence, is that gods don't exist, but I have never said with 100% certainty that they don't. Few atheists make that claim.

And I don't see how I was misrepresenting you. I was reading the words you wrote and interpreting them as I understood them. Your point seems to be that lack of evidence means nothing, that things can exist even when there is no evidence for them, and even when there is evidence contrary to their existence, given the exchange between yourself and kiwi_tea. You later said something that may have been a mis-phrasing of what you meant, which, interpreted literally, states that you think there is nothing that doesn't exist. I'm willing to believe that was simply mistaken phrasing on your part.

The overarching problem with what you are arguing is that you are relying on idealism for your argument, when empiricism and materialism would be much more persuasive to those of us you are arguing with, as I believe all of us arguing with you believe those epistemological underpinnings to be the accurate means of finding truth. Maybe you personally feel that idealism is the best means of finding truth; that is your prerogative, but our argument will lead nowhere if that is the case because we will simply be arguing past one another.

What I find most funny about this whole debate is I'm pretty sure we hold the exact same viewpoint but are expressing it differently. I feel like this is all a comedy of errors.

Let's try to clear up any misunderstandings any of us are having about the others point. Both trying to really understand it an not just say "This is what you mean."

Because I will admit it wasn't completely accurate to label all atheists the same as I am one as well, only agnostic. I only meant those who believe they can know that god does not exist.

"According to Richard Dawkins, a distinction between agnosticism and atheism is unwieldy and depends on how close to zero we are willing to rate the probability of existence for any given god-like entity. Since in practice it is not worth contrasting a zero probability with one that is nearly indistinguishable from zero, he prefers to categorize himself as a "de facto atheist". He specifies his position by means of a scale of 1 to 7. On this scale, 1 indicates "100 per cent probability of God." A person ranking at 7 on the scale would be a person who says "I know there is no God..." Dawkins places himself at 6 on the scale, which he characterizes as "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there", but leaning toward 7. About himself, Dawkins continues that "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."[39] Dawkins also identifies two categories of agnostics; Temporary Agnostics in Practice (TAPs), and Permanent Agnostics in Principle (PAPs). Dawkins considers temporary agnosticism an entirely reasonable position, but views permanent agnosticism as "fence-sitting, intellectual cowardice."

In this case I'd put myself a little above Dawkins at 5. He has a lot more certainty on this subject than I can claim but I'm willing to move up to 6 or 7. It'd have to be pretty convincingly ruled out. Either way, it's not important to my daily life.



Sorry that was supposed to come out as a light-hearted jab.




Ah, yes. Here's my point then.
There is no evidence for God.
Lack of Evidence is not enough to have a 0 probability of God.
Therefore one can not unequivocally state God does not exist.
By saying this doesn't make God exist de facto.
Neither positions can be held logically.
But this does not prevent one from (dis)believing in illogical things.
I prefer to hold that only things that are quantifiable and demonstrable exist.
The question of the existence of things not quantifiable and demonstrable do not matter, these things are imaginary at best. And perhaps a sign of psychological issues at worst. Their only existence being in the minds of their creators, and anyone else who believes in them.
It's is logical to say I do not know there is X, if I do not have sufficient evidence to make that claim. However I live my life as if there is not an X.

/endtl;dr

Last edited by Elyasis : 12th Aug 2011 at 07:33 AM.

I prefer not to mess with statistics, and instead say: There's about as much evidence of gods as there is for vampires, so I consider them about equally likely to exist.

I can't really tell clearly, Elyasis, whether you subscribe to idealism, or some kind of post-structuralist extreme relativism, or quite what your position is. It's like you're on the same page as us a lot of the time, but also like you're unwilling to draw a firm conclusion for reasons I can't quite ascertain. I don't understand this obsession with an absolute "100%" disproof being the only acceptable one, either. We'd be intellectually and pragmatically paralysed if we all took that up.

There isn't "100%" proof that I'm not a purple turtle with a bus for a head. Please don't tell me you think it's unreasonable for us all to conclude that I'm not.

(...I like my head )

That's because I can't draw a firm conclusion, Kiwi_Tea. Well, none more firm than I have so far drawn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poststructuralism
Not as far as I can tell, although it seems to be a way of understanding a piece of literature. Not metaphysical things.

Extreme relavitism is something I know is not my way of doing things as I have said I do not know but I live as if it isn't true until it is (if it ever can or will be). But I'm not holding onto any notions that such a thing is more than an infinitely small probability. However much we can be sure of the probability of an unknown thing.

Idealism
"Any philosophy that places importance on the ideal or spiritual realm in its account of human existence may be termed "idealist". Metaphysical idealism is an ontology that holds that reality itself is essentially spirit or consciousness or, at least, that abstractions and laws are more basic to reality than the things we perceive. Epistemological idealism is the view that reality can only be known through ideas, that only psychological experience can be apprehended by the mind.[1]"
In no way shape or form is that what I am saying. I'm not sure how you got that impression when I have stated that the only evidence is evidence.
Unless you meant another usage of the term I'm not aware of I don't think Idealism is the word you are looking for.

edit:
Pics or you are, Kiwi_Tea.
Actually, I think I might become theist if you were. It'd show even if God has no mercy, he at least has a sense of humor.
I don't find skepticism paralyzing at all. In fact it's quite the opposite.

I, myself, would say fairly firmly that vampires don't exist, despite not having 100% proof that they don't. That strikes me as a case where I may draw a firm conclusion without 100% proof. Same goes for trolls, faeries, and Oprah Winfrey's conscience.

Edit: Pic is my avvie. That's duct tape, not a bus. Although there's no 100% way to prove that it's not a bus.

Maybe. We seem to have different means of getting where we're getting, though I think that our conclusions may be similar with largely semantic differences.



I'd probably say I'm a 6. I use the term 'agnostic atheist' for clarity, as many people believe that atheists hold the position of certainty about the non-existence of god, where I merely believe that the likelihood is so slim it's not worth taking into account. So the term 'atheist' probably is accurate, but it smooths conversation a bit to use the term that most closely fits popular perception of the stance I hold. I'm not as vocal about my non-belief in God as Dawkins is (I don't really debate this topic very much off of the internet), but my views are essentially described by those quotes.



Sorry I misunderstood you, I guess tone and emotion simply aren't conveyed well enough in a written medium.



I would generally agree, though I would more strictly lean toward placing the burden of proof on the side claiming the existence of something lacking evidence. I simply think it is most practical to disregard unnecessary entities.

You are fine to do so. And yet it's not the only way to look at it. The "idea" of vampires exist and is in evolution along side actual beings, like humans. However there are no physical manifestations of actual vampires as far as one can be aware.
Almost everything is an uncertainty except for things such as "every triangle has three sides" it wouldn't be a triangle if it didn't.
However, much like you, I don't check around every corner and put garlic around my room "just in case".
I can't be 100% sure they do not exist but I'm certain enough to not have to ask if they are.



Of course, it's awfully hard to show proof of something NOT existing after all.

Wait, we're actually debating the possibility that vampires exist?! Srsly?

Vampires, god, invisible pink unicorn, reality- there's no difference, really.

Vampires do exist. They make their teeth into fangs, go around biting people, and sleep in coffins.

Maybe they're not legitimate vampires, but they're as close as reality will get to a vampire that shares the same morals.

Besides, nowadays you don't even have to sleep during the day if you're a vampire, you can just go around and sparkle. I'd imagine (besides the undead part, and the possibility of contracting blood transmitted diseases and infections) it would be relatively easy being a modern day vampire.

Don't you just love how Twilight has turned Vampires from cool, sleek historic monsters of the night, into emo teenage boys that sparkle as they sunbathe...

People dress up as vampires, ergo: God exists. ^_^

Hey I know someone named Christ and another name Jesus granted one is said Heyzues but still it's still Christ and Jesus, still havn't met god.

And vampires DO exsist. Along with blood suckers we already know and love like fleas, ticks, and mosquitos, but last time I checked they can't turn us into anything.

As in movie style vampires probably not except for the few crazy poeple who think they are... You know they have medication for that?

To each their own, and you know when you look at pictures of the universe you can't help but to wonder if there is something like a god out there controling everything. But if there was you think he'd have a stick up his ass like a lot of religions portray him/her/it to be?

Well, there is cutaneous porphyria... :P

Careful you'll get disagreed for stating scientific fact.