Theology Question

Quincunx said:
Let's make the example more concrete: "There is no cow behind that door".

Prior to anyone even suggesting there might be a cow behind the door, do you approach every closed door thinking: "I wonder if there is a cow behind this door"? Probably not. As such you don't believe there is a cow behind every single unopened door just waiting to be proven or disproven.

Is it merely a belief of yours that there are not cows behind every unopened door you see?
Click to expand...
Dance all you want, but there’s a lot of depends there. Is the door a 20th floor NYC apartment or is it an abandoned farmhouse turned grazing land? What other creatures are you going to assume are not behind that door?

If you find a door on the ground in Texas, would you just stick your hand under it or would you look first knowing there’s a chance of a rattlesnake being under it?

The fact remains you can argue the disbelief bullshit all you like just like the Bible thumpers can argue their points, but no one knows if there is something beyond the Natural Universe. Anyone who claims there is or isn’t is operating on faith, not fact.
 
Doc Dutch said:
The fact remains you can argue the disbelief bullshit all you like just like the Bible thumpers can argue their points, but no one knows if there is something beyond the Natural Universe. Anyone who claims there is or isn’t is operating on faith, not fact.
Click to expand...

I prefer to act in accordance with how one might approach a science topic.

Start with the null hypothesis and test against it.

Your approach appears to be start from the "All things are possible" approach and seek to test that. In an epistemological sense that is fine. All things ARE possible until disproven to be.

I understand your position, but I prefer the more scientific approach.

Unless you drive down the interstate at 3 miles and hour in order to avoid problems with invisible walls, I suspect you also partake of that scientific approach.
 
Quincunx said:
I prefer to act in accordance with how one might approach a science topic.

Start with the null hypothesis and test against it.

Your approach appears to be start from the "All things are possible" approach and seek to test that. In an epistemological sense that is fine. All things ARE possible until disproven to be.

I understand your position, but I prefer the more scientific approach.

Unless you drive down the interstate at 3 miles and hour in order to avoid problems with invisible walls, I suspect you also partake of that scientific approach.
Click to expand...
If that were true then you’d recognize that, without evidence, it’s impossible to draw a conclusion.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Any guesses on whose sock that is? He always shows up when things get dicey.

Personally, except a mods with a single alter ego account, I think anyone who uses socks are dishonest and often cowardly….or nuts:
QED
Click to expand...

Yup. Except for the mods who are allowed an alter ego...there should be no socks.
 
Quincunx said:
I have to go with America on this one. A non-belief is not really a belief. It may be incorrect to NOT believe in something but that doesn't make it a belief itself.

I do not believe in Thymorgitron. Is it because I BELIEVE there is no Thymorgitron?

The reason I made up a word there is to prove the point that "God" is not dissimilar. Someone made up God at one point and told others that God exists and enough people said "Yeah, sure" that ultimately it becomes a "thing" that we have to decide whether it exists or not. Failing to believe in this made up concept does not necessarily stand as a "belief" but rather a lack of belief.

Just like Thymorgitron. (Now that I have introduced Thymorgitron you must decide whether you believe Thymorgitron exists or doesn't exist. Prior to this point you didn't believe in Thymorgitron because it wasn't a "thing" in your sphere. Now it is. Do you only BELIEVE Thymorgitron doesn't exist?
Click to expand...

Actually, I agree. If you TRULY do not "believe" a thing...then there is no problem.

But I am asserting that the ONLY reason one would use the word "atheist" as a descriptor or part of a descriptor...is because the person using it DOES have "belief" as a basis for that use.

If a person uses atheist as a descriptor or part of a descriptor...they either "believe" there are no gods...or "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

It would make no sense whatsoever to use "atheist" if you think there are gods...or if you think the likelihood there is at least one god is the same (or greater) than that there are none.

I guess one might use it just because SOME dictionaries or reference books describe it as "without a belief in a god"...but that would just make someone a fool. No reference book should decide how you must describe yourself.
 
Quincunx said:
Actually in inferential statistics the default position is the "null hypothesis".

If I were to test for the existence of God using inference (as scientists do) I start with the null hypothesis "There is no God" and test against that. That is how drugs are tested. You start with the null hypothesis "There is no effect from this drug" and test against that.

You can either reject the null or fail to reject the null.

I see your point that "I don't know" is a good default position, but that isn't really agnosticism. Agnosticism is technically the belief that the question can NEVER be answered.
Click to expand...

Most emphatically...IT IS NOT.

How in the world would I, as an Agnostic**, KNOW that the question can never be answered. In fact, IF THERE IS A GOD...it could easily be answered...BY THE GOD. And if the god chose to impart that information unambiguously to humanity...it could. (There is no way "There are no gods" can be known.)

As for "default" positions, yes one can probably default to "I don't know" but being more scientific the approach of testing against the null is probably more robust.

I use it every day personally. I always take the null hypothesis that there is no invisible wall across the interstate when I drive. That is how I can keep my foot on the gas and driving at 60mph even though if I were to crash into an invisible wall I would surely be destroyed. I have take the true default position: failing to any evidence I am unable to reject the null hypothesis.
Click to expand...

I am going to pass on the null hypothesis discussion, because for all practical purposes, it has no applicability in this instance, because there is no way to test against "There is no god)"...or as I would prefer, "There are no gods."

The best one can do there is, "There may be no gods"...which IS a part of an agnostic position on the question.

** I no longer use "I am an Agnostic." Instead I state my position...which is:


I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...so I don't.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

That is MY default position...and the one I consider best.
 
Doc Dutch said:
If that were true then you’d recognize that, without evidence, it’s impossible to draw a conclusion.
Click to expand...

Without evidence you fail to reject the null. That's all you can do.

I prefer how science operates. Barring any evidence I fail to reject the null hypothesis that "There is no God".

(The subtlety here is that this is not a positive claim of evidence that there is no God, but rather a failure to get sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis. This is how science operates and I prefer scientific approaches).
 
Quincunx said:
Without evidence you fail to reject the null. That's all you can do.

I prefer how science operates. Barring any evidence I fail to reject the null hypothesis that "There is no God".

(The subtlety here is that this is not a positive claim of evidence that there is no God, but rather a failure to get sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis. This is how science operates and I prefer scientific approaches).
Click to expand...

What Leibniz calls a sufficient cause.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Most emphatically...IT IS NOT.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

I am going to pass on the null hypothesis discussion, because for all practical purposes, it has no applicability in this instance,
Click to expand...

It has every applicability. It is the basis of many atheists' approach. It is, in fact, really the ONLY applicable point of discussion. Unless one wishes to avoid scientific approaches to knowledge.

because there is no way to test against "There is no god)"...or as I would prefer, "There are no gods."
Click to expand...

Of course there is. One could pray and see how often prayers are answered. Such "studies" have been done. If the default is that God sometimes doesn't answer prayers then that is an unfalsifiable claim and one that cannot be used as evidence either for or against the God hypothesis.

One could compare the various versions of God to see if there is any commonality or any mutually exclusive things that would make it impossible.

The list goes on. Miracles, for instance. They can be tested (and when they are usually found to be not evidence).
 
Quincunx said:
Without evidence you fail to reject the null. That's all you can do.

I prefer how science operates. Barring any evidence I fail to reject the null hypothesis that "There is no God".

(The subtlety here is that this is not a positive claim of evidence that there is no God, but rather a failure to get sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis. This is how science operates and I prefer scientific approaches).
Click to expand...
Sooo…if you dropped an expensive ring and it rolled under a board in the Texas wilderness, you’d use your “null hypothesis” to blindly reach under it. Fascinating.

What would Pascal think about your “logic”?
 
Frank Apisa said:
Actually, I agree. If you TRULY do not "believe" a thing...then there is no problem.

But I am asserting that the ONLY reason one would use the word "atheist" as a descriptor or part of a descriptor...is because the person using it DOES have "belief" as a basis for that use.
Click to expand...

If one does not understand how english words are constructed. the A- at the beginning of atheist is merely an accession that there is no reason to believe in God. It doesn't say it is a positive belief, nor does it say a negative belief.

It is, perfectly summarized, the lack of a belief. That's how it is defined. Just like "agnostic" means without knowledge (a- gnostic).

If a person uses atheist as a descriptor or part of a descriptor...they either "believe" there are no gods...or "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. I am an atheist who simply fails to believe in God. That is not a belief as they say, anymore than not stamp collecting is a hobby.

I wish that I was allowed to be this in your view but apparently you wish to tell me what I do or do not believe.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Sooo…if you dropped an expensive ring and it rolled under a board in the Texas wilderness, you’d use your “null hypothesis” to blindly reach under it. Fascinating.
Click to expand...

I assume your example must be related to rattle snakes or venomous spiders, so I will merely point out that isn't really the discussion. If I were in Texas in the wilderness there is EVERY ReASON to believe such a thing might be under there.

Why would I not?

Now run the same experiment in Clorvandistan. An imaginary country you have NO DATA ON WHATSOEVER.
 
Quincunx said:
I assume your example must be related to rattle snakes or venomous spiders, so I will merely point out that isn't really the discussion. If I were in Texas in the wilderness there is EVERY ReASON to believe such a thing might be under there.

Why would I not?

Now run the same experiment in Clorvandistan. An imaginary country you have NO DATA ON WHATSOEVER.
Click to expand...
The point being that you don’t know and, like Pascal, you’d choose the most beneficial course of action.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top